Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4351 Posted by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

Its based across the top medical schools in the US

Avatar image for outside_85
#4352 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

Its based across the top medical schools in the US

I am still not seeing a number.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4353 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@just_sayin said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

No not really. The article deals with all medical schools enrollments in Michigan as cited by AAMC records. Unless you are arguing that there is only two black doctors in the state, the observation that there is discrimination in admissions is valid.

How big is the pool then? How many black applicants were there? Give us some hard numbers. Because like I said, 80% is not showing us anything if a black applicant is actually a rarity.

Why does it matter. Across the top medical schools in the US a black person scoring average has an 80% chance of acceptance, whereas an asian scoring the average has a 20% chance of acceptance. Its clearly prejudiced.

I think you didn't read the source either, that article does cite numbers. Around two times more asians applied than blacks, although that accounts for non-american people of african decent

Avatar image for outside_85
#4354 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@just_sayin said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

No not really. The article deals with all medical schools enrollments in Michigan as cited by AAMC records. Unless you are arguing that there is only two black doctors in the state, the observation that there is discrimination in admissions is valid.

How big is the pool then? How many black applicants were there? Give us some hard numbers. Because like I said, 80% is not showing us anything if a black applicant is actually a rarity.

Why does it matter. Across the top medical schools in the US a black person scoring average has an 80% chance of acceptance, whereas an asian scoring the average has a 20% chance of acceptance

Because saying that a % something is meaningless when you dont actually provide the number the % is based off.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4355 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85: Read the damn source then, I can't explain the full thing. Around two and a half times more asians applied than blacks, although that accounts for non-american people of african decent. And about the same amount of hispanics applied as blacks, yet had a 20% smaller acceptance rate across the board if they scored within one standard deviation of the mean

Avatar image for willpayton
#4356 Posted by willpayton (22074 posts) - - Show Bio

Same story every time a Republican gets into office. Lower taxes on the rich, balloon the national deficit, cut social problems, de-fund science, education, and environmental protection, and of course spend more on the military.

Trump wants to now spend $750 billion on the military next year. Yeah, that's just for one year.

The next biggest spender on military, which is China btw, only spends $175 billion.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-military/trump-backs-750-billion-defense-budget-request-to-congress-official-idUSKBN1O900I

At this rate, we're going to be spending as much at the next 10 biggest countries combined, all the while we run bigger and bigger deficits, get into trade wars that are tanking the stock market and costing the country money and jobs, and we let our infrastructure, education, and innovation decline.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4357 Posted by willpayton (22074 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for abstractraze
#4358 Edited by AbstractRaze (2545 posts) - - Show Bio

What a wonderful week start, I woke up and the first interesting thing I saw was this:

French protesters brandish GUILLOTINE in chilling threat to Macron at ‘Day of Rage’ riots

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7938050/paris-riots-day-rage-macron-guillotine-threat/

No Caption Provided

Yellow Vest protesters erect a GUILLOTINE bearing French President's political party name amid revolt that will force Macron to address the nation tonight

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6477953/Yellow-Vest-protesters-erect-GUILLOTINE-bearing-French-Presidents-political-party-amid-riots.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

No Caption Provided

We, European people, are no joke, truly proud of my French brothers, they once decapitated the Royal French family during The execution of Louis XVI in 1793. At some point when you just live your life quietly and the leftist abuse you loudly, there will come a time to apply the acts of war against them, all those liberal leaders within the EU's crime syndicate, are next, their heads shall roll for their treason and oppression against the people, we won't surrender our homelands anymore.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4359 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

If you think the Republicans are suicidal enough to actually strike a deal with the Dems and impeach Trump I don't know what to tell you.......

Also the majority Dems aren't even interested in perusing impeachment. The entire concept is a fever dream unless he basically gets found guilty of high treason

Avatar image for boschepg
#4360 Edited by boschePG (6313 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

Same story every time a Republican gets into office. Lower taxes on the rich, balloon the national deficit, cut social problems, de-fund science, education, and environmental protection, and of course spend more on the military.

Trump wants to now spend $750 billion on the military next year. Yeah, that's just for one year.

The next biggest spender on military, which is China btw, only spends $175 billion.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-military/trump-backs-750-billion-defense-budget-request-to-congress-official-idUSKBN1O900I

At this rate, we're going to be spending as much at the next 10 biggest countries combined, all the while we run bigger and bigger deficits, get into trade wars that are tanking the stock market and costing the country money and jobs, and we let our infrastructure, education, and innovation decline.

the biggest defecit ever created was from....Barack Obama.

Military spending angle is just an angle people push when they don't investigate the numbers.

2015 military spending was 601 Billion. Another link with a graph of 2015 discretionary spending. And that was with a military cut to equipment and restricting age/standard requirements. The military in front of the House at the end of 2015 stated that our military infrastructure was slowly lacking. So much that we cant fly a large part of out airborne transports cuz we cant train enough people to actually fly them. They stated that if we got into an actual conflict that the US couldn't run global presence and get into a conflict at the same time. The military budget passed when there was a threaten shutdown over military spending but was signed was actually more than that.

The bill was actually a 2019 top ceiling of 890 billion,The article was for 2020, which is actually 140 billion less than the 2019 request. So...are you still mad even though Trump actually cut military spending for 2020 with the facts given to you? That was the 2019 roof but Trump did request not to spend that much. Link of the break down is as follows:

616 billion for base spending - which is only 15 billion more than Obama

70 billion operation against terrorism with other nations (we are squashing ISIS)

181 billion in VA affairs (the oldest health care system in the US in which Trump raised the budget for its veterans) and DHS (have we have any foreign bombers in the US the past two years???)

and lastly, 18 billion in military operations directly associated with terror.

Out of the majority you seem to be getting upset at I want you to know that around 65% of it goes to military paychecks and healthcare. So 35% is going to the weapons and bullets I think you are trying to rage against. One would to assume that 65% of it went to bullets and weapons but it isn't broken down and just a flashpoint to get people mad at the military - our largest training program in the US

In 2009, Obama's second year his military spending was 698 billion per NY times. Was 720 in 2010 and 717 in 2011 but cut by standards in 2013 to 610. So historically by the numbers Trumps request are not that far off from Obama's tenure. The article just wants you mad at it...and people wonder why people don't trust journalism???

Avatar image for outside_85
#4361 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85: Read the damn source then, I can't explain the full thing. Around two and a half times more asians applied than blacks, although that accounts for non-american people of african decent. And about the same amount of hispanics applied as blacks, yet had a 20% smaller acceptance rate across the board if they scored within one standard deviation of the mean

I did and didn't find it. Also it's your source and claim, if you want it to mean anything you should provide the figure.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4362 Posted by mrmonster (14666 posts) - - Show Bio

If you think the Republicans are suicidal enough to actually strike a deal with the Dems and impeach Trump I don't know what to tell you.......

Unfortunately, @decaf_wizard might be right for once. Even when "if" the Special Counsel and/or the New York Attorney General's office find undeniable proof of Trump's felonies, I'm not sure that Senate Republicans will have the bravery to impeach Trump. They've shown cowardice before, I don't put it past them to show it again.

Avatar image for outside_85
#4363 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio
@decaf_wizard said:

If you think the Republicans are suicidal enough to actually strike a deal with the Dems and impeach Trump I don't know what to tell you.......

Unfortunately, @decaf_wizard might be right for once. Even when "if" the Special Counsel and/or the New York Attorney General's office find undeniable proof of Trump's felonies, I'm not sure that Senate Republicans will have the bravery to impeach Trump. They've shown cowardice before, I don't put it past them to show it again.

That is, as you say, unfortunately true. But at the same time we could hope that there is a level somewhere that when reached, Senate Republicans start realizing that Trump is a political rock dragging them to the bottom of a deep lake and that their own careers in the Senate is being endangered if they stick with him.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
#4364 Posted by Thekillerklok (9916 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh you sillies, don't you know trump spent a pence on an insurance policy that makes him difficult to impeach.

Avatar image for outside_85
#4365 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh you sillies, don't you know trump spent a pence on an insurance policy that makes him difficult to impeach.

I did actually read about a theory that Trump would actually resign near the very end of his term, let Pence be president for all of 10 minutes... long enough for Pence to pardon Trump. While I can see the idea, I question why Pence would go along with it.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4366 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18162 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4367 Posted by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

Yea thats exactly the point. It prevents the tyranny of the majority which in and of itself was a massive issue during the time the US constitution was written. One of the big intents of the electoral college was to indeed prevent political power being concentrated and controlled by six or seven states

Avatar image for thekillerklok
#4368 Posted by Thekillerklok (9916 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard: I think I brought up a while back that if you got rid of the electoral college you would be giving more political power to... florida...

Avatar image for outside_85
#4369 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

'We the people...'

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4370 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster said:
@decaf_wizard said:

If you think the Republicans are suicidal enough to actually strike a deal with the Dems and impeach Trump I don't know what to tell you.......

Unfortunately, @decaf_wizard might be right for once. Even when "if" the Special Counsel and/or the New York Attorney General's office find undeniable proof of Trump's felonies, I'm not sure that Senate Republicans will have the bravery to impeach Trump. They've shown cowardice before, I don't put it past them to show it again.

Well here is the issue. The Constitution sets specific and relatively high grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must both find the person guilty of these things. The problem is defining them

Treason and Bribery are obvious. Trump hasn't really done those, by any stretch of the word from any evidence we have now. When you hear “high crimes and misdemeanors”? you might be tempted to think think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors" or some comparable 18th century equivalent. Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any sort of crime that congress considers serious enough to impeach an official. You would be mistaken to think that.

To avoid an incredibly long and pointless discussion on history of the constitution, The term “high crimes and misdemeanors” had been defined many years previous to the Constitution of the US, originating in Britain and used to convict various public officials under various charges. Some of these charges were actual crimes. Others were not. The one thing common between all these accusations was that the public official had somehow seriously abused or flaunted the power of his office in a way they could not do without their position. For example, most impeachment cases in the US have been against federal judges, who are held to a slightly different standard to other federal officials like Presidents are not held to due to the nature of their position.

Convicting Trump under these grounds would be difficult with the amount of evidence presented. Paying somebody hush money above campaign limits for example, is while somewhat immoral and potentially illegal, is not an abuse of presidential power. Even delivering articles of impeachment would be considered an overreach by the Democrats, as when the Republicans went after Clinton for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice (the first of which he was guilty of no matter what you think). As far as I am aware, the impeachment trial itself was concerned only with whether or not his actions met the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard required for removal from office and it was not meant to rule on the underlying crime. In fact he actually got cited for outright contempt of court and made a plea bargain with the Office of the Independent Counsel under which his law license was suspended for several years. This concept of overreach is why the mainstream dems aside from a few firebrands aren't really too interested in actually trying to impeach Trump

Additionally, it would cost the Reublicans significant political capital if they DID vote to impeach, and would almost certainly cede the next election to the Democrats if they did impeach. The only way they would do it is if by getting rid of Trump they were cutting their loses

Avatar image for dernman
#4371 Posted by Dernman (25907 posts) - - Show Bio


Additionally, it would cost the Reublicans significant political capital if they DID vote to impeach, and would almost certainly cede the next election to the Democrats if they did impeach. The only way they would do it is if by getting rid of Trump they were cutting their loses

Haven't they lost alot of capital with Trump in there? Do you really think Republicans will get another presidential term in office either way? Some could be argued that they might gain credit for trying to impeach. Though the opposite can be true.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4372 Posted by just_sayin (3365 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

'We the people...'

Way to get on board @outside_85! Quoting the opening lines of the Constitution where in Article 12 the electoral college rationale is laid out. I'm proud of you taking the side of the constitution. Way to go!

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4373 Posted by just_sayin (3365 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@decaf_wizard said:

Additionally, it would cost the Reublicans significant political capital if they DID vote to impeach, and would almost certainly cede the next election to the Democrats if they did impeach. The only way they would do it is if by getting rid of Trump they were cutting their loses

Haven't they lost alot of capital with Trump in there? Do you really think Republicans will get another presidential term in office either way? Some could be argued that they might gain credit for trying to impeach. Though the opposite can be true.

Actually, Trump is the betting favorite to win reelection at 7-4 odds. The next highest candidate was Kamala Harris at 10 to 1 odds.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner

There are 6 times more bets on Trump winning than the next candidate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davecaldwell/2018/06/07/plenty-of-bettors-are-already-putting-their-real-money-on-trump-in-2020/#4e86c2e827a5

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4374 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@decaf_wizard said:

Additionally, it would cost the Reublicans significant political capital if they DID vote to impeach, and would almost certainly cede the next election to the Democrats if they did impeach. The only way they would do it is if by getting rid of Trump they were cutting their loses

Haven't they lost alot of capital with Trump in there? Do you really think Republicans will get another presidential term in office either way? Some could be argued that they might gain credit for trying to impeach. Though the opposite can be true.

The democrats don't have a viable candidate to beat Trump. Even Joe Biden would have immense difficulty in doing it (although he is probably the best bet) and Hillary sure as hell isn't winning anything. Bernie can't even run as a Democrat and if he ran independent would cannibalize a significant portion of democratic votes. Any other candidate the dems might come up with has no chance of beating him

Attempting to impeach Trump for something that happened on the campaign trail and not an abuse of presidential power would be considered an overreach by most people and would lose the democrats a lot of support. It would be seen as a power grab, like the Clinton Impeachment

Such a huge amount of republicans support Trump that canning him would cause the Republican base to get pissy.

Avatar image for supremegeneration
#4375 Posted by SupremeGeneration (11414 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

Yea thats exactly the point. It prevents the tyranny of the majority which in and of itself was a massive issue during the time the US constitution was written. One of the big intents of the electoral college was to indeed prevent political power being concentrated and controlled by six or seven states

Feel free to correct if any of this is wrong, I barely visit this thread and care less about politics than you guys probably do, but wouldn't a popular election, even if dominated by large states, be more representative of what the people want? IIRC Hillary won by almost 3 million votes the popular election, and while I don't know the specifics of the electoral college (feel free to enlighten me), it kinda takes the choice of who we want as president away from the people. If the larger states are voting it's because they have more people, and if more people wanted Hillary, no amount of votes should, imo, have prevented that.

But like I said, do enlighten me (no sarcasm), I always thought the electoral college was a bit redundant in idea, but I wanna see why people think we need it. Who knows, you might even change my mind.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4376 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18162 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

'We the people...'

Way to get on board @outside_85! Quoting the opening lines of the Constitution where in Article 12 the electoral college rationale is laid out. I'm proud of you taking the side of the constitution. Way to go!

I think you mean Article 2 of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4377 Posted by just_sayin (3365 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin said:
@outside_85 said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

'We the people...'

Way to get on board @outside_85! Quoting the opening lines of the Constitution where in Article 12 the electoral college rationale is laid out. I'm proud of you taking the side of the constitution. Way to go!

I think you mean Article 2 of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment.

Yep, amendment 12 was what I was going for.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4378 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@supremegeneration said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

Yea thats exactly the point. It prevents the tyranny of the majority which in and of itself was a massive issue during the time the US constitution was written. One of the big intents of the electoral college was to indeed prevent political power being concentrated and controlled by six or seven states

Feel free to correct if any of this is wrong, I barely visit this thread and care less about politics than you guys probably do, but wouldn't a popular election, even if dominated by large states, be more representative of what the people want? IIRC Hillary won by almost 3 million votes the popular election, and while I don't know the specifics of the electoral college (feel free to enlighten me), it kinda takes the choice of who we want as president away from the people. If the larger states are voting it's because they have more people, and if more people wanted Hillary, no amount of votes should, imo, have prevented that.

But like I said, do enlighten me (no sarcasm), I always thought the electoral college was a bit redundant in idea, but I wanna see why people think we need it. Who knows, you might even change my mind.

I dont care about US politics beyond how it affects my investments lol. I treat it as a game. Me and my friends have a betting pool because its fun

The idea behind the electoral college is that, shocker, urban enclaves do not represent the interests of all the US. One thing the Electoral College has done extremely well is to ensure that every state matters in a presidential election. If we were to use only the popular vote to determine a presidential election winner, 10 states by themselves could determine the winner and 15 could do so by an extremely large majority. Voters in the other 35 states would not have mattered. The electoral college is designed to protect the minority.

The United States federal government is designed in an way as to protect the freedoms of all the states from the potential tyranny of a relatively small number of states and metro areas. Would Alaskans or Kansans really want to have their federal government, its policies and its agencies run by the politicians favoured by majorities mainly from the Northeast Coast and the West Coast? The United States, as the name obviously implies and is so often lost upon the ignoramuses of the modern political landscape, is in fact a collection of individual states with their own constitutions and each with its own social, economic and geographic interests. The Electoral College exists to protect those interests. The writings of the founders of the US makes this highly clear.

Look at Canada, and more specifically the Atlantic provinces where I live, as an example of how proportional representation screws you. We have population based representation. Our population is INCREDIBLY small compared to Quebec and Ontario and the entire population of Atlantic Canada isn't even a third of the population of Ontario alone. A century of legislation favouring their interests over ours has screwed us time and time again, floundering and stagnating our economy because of over a century of decisions made by the federal government that favoured Ontario and Quebec. It goes all the way back to John A MacDonald, who cut off our trade with New England and forced us to deal with ON/QC which didn't want what we produced. Political leaders don't even bother appealing towards the Atlantic region with more than token effort.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4379 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18162 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

Yea thats exactly the point. It prevents the tyranny of the majority which in and of itself was a massive issue during the time the US constitution was written. One of the big intents of the electoral college was to indeed prevent political power being concentrated and controlled by six or seven states

Feel free to correct if any of this is wrong, I barely visit this thread and care less about politics than you guys probably do, but wouldn't a popular election, even if dominated by large states, be more representative of what the people want? IIRC Hillary won by almost 3 million votes the popular election, and while I don't know the specifics of the electoral college (feel free to enlighten me), it kinda takes the choice of who we want as president away from the people. If the larger states are voting it's because they have more people, and if more people wanted Hillary, no amount of votes should, imo, have prevented that.

But like I said, do enlighten me (no sarcasm), I always thought the electoral college was a bit redundant in idea, but I wanna see why people think we need it. Who knows, you might even change my mind.

I completely understand what you're saying, and the thinking behind it, but there is a problem with it unfortunately in a union of states. Originally the concept for the US was a loose organization of 13 separate states that worked together when they ALL voted to (didn't work very well), so they decided (amid a LOT of controversy, and some minor threats of violent insurrection that actually ended up happening later on) to create what we have now: one nation with each state being a part of a whole and represented as equally as possible. Now...here's where it gets tricky.

First the states with the bigger populations wanted to have more power in government and the smaller ones were obviously not cool with that. This ended up creating the two houses of Congress but that's not the part we're here to discuss.

Originally in Article 2 of the Constitution there was NO provision for the population to vote...at all. The Electoral College was made up of "electors" who would vote for president and vice president separately, there was no popular vote at all to decide which way they electors would vote.

Then in 1804 the 12th Amendment to the Constitution changed quite a bit. 1. It allowed for political parties (ick) which meant that whatever presidential candidate was put up by the party, their vice presidential pick would not have to be voted on. 2. It allowed for the populations of each state to vote and the winner of the popular vote would be who the electors (decided by a vote somewhere else on their merits) would vote for. The system would be a "Winner Take All" system. Even if (lets's say Florida) if the Republicans in Florida only won by 51% they would still get all the electoral college votes for Florida. The only two states that aren't "Winner Take All" states are Maine and Nebraska (I don't recall why). they're electoral votes can be split by the counties that they are assigned to (I believe). The 23rd Amendment also added 3 additional electoral votes to the District of Columbia.

Buuuuuuuutt WAIT! What's the point of all this?

Like i mentioned earlier...one of the only reasons that the smaller states even agreed to join the United States was if there WAS a system like the electoral college to begin with, I also assure you that most people in these smaller states are not the ones who are screaming for the electoral college system to be changed. There are DEFINITELY some problems with the system. DEFINITELY, but right now it's the best system we have. It's like the old adage. If it's stupid and works...it's not stupid.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4380 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18162 posts) - - Show Bio

@supremegeneration said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

Yea thats exactly the point. It prevents the tyranny of the majority which in and of itself was a massive issue during the time the US constitution was written. One of the big intents of the electoral college was to indeed prevent political power being concentrated and controlled by six or seven states

Feel free to correct if any of this is wrong, I barely visit this thread and care less about politics than you guys probably do, but wouldn't a popular election, even if dominated by large states, be more representative of what the people want? IIRC Hillary won by almost 3 million votes the popular election, and while I don't know the specifics of the electoral college (feel free to enlighten me), it kinda takes the choice of who we want as president away from the people. If the larger states are voting it's because they have more people, and if more people wanted Hillary, no amount of votes should, imo, have prevented that.

But like I said, do enlighten me (no sarcasm), I always thought the electoral college was a bit redundant in idea, but I wanna see why people think we need it. Who knows, you might even change my mind.

I dont care about US politics beyond how it affects my investments lol. I treat it as a game. Me and my friends have a betting pool because its fun

The idea behind the electoral college is that, shocker, urban enclaves do not represent the interests of all the US. One thing the Electoral College has done extremely well is to ensure that every state matters in a presidential election. If we were to use only the popular vote to determine a presidential election winner, 10 states by themselves could determine the winner and 15 could do so by an extremely large majority. Voters in the other 35 states would not have mattered. The electoral college is designed to protect the minority.

The United States federal government is designed in an way as to protect the freedoms of all the states from the potential tyranny of a relatively small number of states and metro areas. Would Alaskans or Kansans really want to have their federal government, its policies and its agencies run by the politicians favoured by majorities mainly from the Northeast Coast and the West Coast? The United States, as the name obviously implies and is so often lost upon the ignoramuses of the modern political landscape, is in fact a collection of individual states with their own constitutions and each with its own social, economic and geographic interests. The Electoral College exists to protect those interests. The writings of the founders of the US makes this highly clear.

Look at Canada, and more specifically the Atlantic provinces where I live, as an example of how proportional representation screws you. We have population based representation. Our population is INCREDIBLY small compared to Quebec and Ontario and the entire population of Atlantic Canada isn't even a third of the population of Ontario alone. A century of legislation favouring their interests over ours has screwed us time and time again, floundering and stagnating our economy because of over a century of decisions made by the federal government that favoured Ontario and Quebec. It goes all the way back to John A MacDonald, who cut off our trade with New England and forced us to deal with ON/QC which didn't want what we produced. Political leaders don't even bother appealing towards the Atlantic region with more than token effort.

Jeez, you're not even American and you said this better than I did. I suck man.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4381 Posted by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard said:

Feel free to correct if any of this is wrong, I barely visit this thread and care less about politics than you guys probably do, but wouldn't a popular election, even if dominated by large states, be more representative of what the people want? IIRC Hillary won by almost 3 million votes the popular election, and while I don't know the specifics of the electoral college (feel free to enlighten me), it kinda takes the choice of who we want as president away from the people. If the larger states are voting it's because they have more people, and if more people wanted Hillary, no amount of votes should, imo, have prevented that.

But like I said, do enlighten me (no sarcasm), I always thought the electoral college was a bit redundant in idea, but I wanna see why people think we need it. Who knows, you might even change my mind.

I dont care about US politics beyond how it affects my investments lol. I treat it as a game. Me and my friends have a betting pool because its fun

The idea behind the electoral college is that, shocker, urban enclaves do not represent the interests of all the US. One thing the Electoral College has done extremely well is to ensure that every state matters in a presidential election. If we were to use only the popular vote to determine a presidential election winner, 10 states by themselves could determine the winner and 15 could do so by an extremely large majority. Voters in the other 35 states would not have mattered. The electoral college is designed to protect the minority.

The United States federal government is designed in an way as to protect the freedoms of all the states from the potential tyranny of a relatively small number of states and metro areas. Would Alaskans or Kansans really want to have their federal government, its policies and its agencies run by the politicians favoured by majorities mainly from the Northeast Coast and the West Coast? The United States, as the name obviously implies and is so often lost upon the ignoramuses of the modern political landscape, is in fact a collection of individual states with their own constitutions and each with its own social, economic and geographic interests. The Electoral College exists to protect those interests. The writings of the founders of the US makes this highly clear.

Look at Canada, and more specifically the Atlantic provinces where I live, as an example of how proportional representation screws you. We have population based representation. Our population is INCREDIBLY small compared to Quebec and Ontario and the entire population of Atlantic Canada isn't even a third of the population of Ontario alone. A century of legislation favouring their interests over ours has screwed us time and time again, floundering and stagnating our economy because of over a century of decisions made by the federal government that favoured Ontario and Quebec. It goes all the way back to John A MacDonald, who cut off our trade with New England and forced us to deal with ON/QC which didn't want what we produced. Political leaders don't even bother appealing towards the Atlantic region with more than token effort.

Jeez, you're not even American and you said this better than I did. I suck man.

Thats not a good thing. Im too into this

Avatar image for boschepg
#4382 Edited by boschePG (6313 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: @decaf_wizard: @just_sayin:

but..but...didnt the media and the Democrats constantly say that getting Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would mean the end to women's reproductive rights? Then why did he vote not to dissent against Planned Parenthood with the liberal judges? That makes no sense if what CNN and MSNBC were telling us was true.

I mean the world is ending right?

The US economy is tanking, right?

Tax cuts only benefited the rich and there is no wage rises, right?

There is no such thing as a caravan in Mexico, That was just him rallying up his base, right?

Canceling net neutrality would just mean we would have to pay higher cost on our internet bill, right?

Avatar image for willpayton
#4383 Posted by willpayton (22074 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:

the biggest defecit ever created was from....Barack Obama.

Yes, and that was due to him inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression. Say it with me... "context matters". The difference between a growing deficit under Obama when at the beginning of his term and that of Trump is that Obama had no other choice. The economy needed to be stabilized... which happened. And later Obama actively tried to lower the deficits. Trump on the other hand inherited a good economy with shrinking deficit, and WILLFULLY started to increase it through lower taxes on the rich and increased military spending.

Military spending angle is just an angle people push when they don't investigate the numbers.

...

All that presumes that we NEED to have this huge world-fighting military, which we dont. We dont NEED to spend more than the next biggest 7 countries combined. This is a fallacious argument for these insane levels of military spending that's been going on for decades.

In 2009, Obama's second year his military spending was 698 billion per NY times. Was 720 in 2010 and 717 in 2011 but cut by standards in 2013 to 610. So historically by the numbers Trumps request are not that far off from Obama's tenure. The article just wants you mad at it...and people wonder why people don't trust journalism???

Again, you're ignoring context. Tell me how many troops the US had deployed in active wars around the world when Obama took office? Now, tell me what that number is now?

Avatar image for willpayton
#4384 Edited by willpayton (22074 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote.

No, it's not. Trump being President is in fact great evidence of how bad the EC is. Same with having millions of people who's vote are basically discounted.

There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President.

Circular argument. You want a system where "states" vote for president, because otherwise "states" woldnt vote for President... what?

Or, you mean that you want the people in those small states to have greater power than others in larger states. In that case, you just dont like democracy and want a few specific minorities to enforce their will on everyone else. Yeah... I dont think so.

While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states.

Again with the talk about "states". But, no talk about people.

In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

And again more talk about states doing this or that. This is nonsense. States dont vote for anyone, states dont have feelings or opinions, people do. The attitude among conservatives seems to be that they dont care about democracy or about people voting or having their say, they just care that people in smaller states get more power because they know it will help them. But you cant just outright come out with that argument, so it has to be rationalized in terms of small states somehow being unfairly treated or ignored or whatever. Sorry, but that doesnt fly.

Avatar image for boschepg
#4385 Edited by boschePG (6313 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@boschepg said:

the biggest defecit ever created was from....Barack Obama.

Yes, and that was due to him inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression. Say it with me... "context matters". The difference between a growing deficit under Obama when at the beginning of his term and that of Trump is that Obama had no other choice. The economy needed to be stabilized... which happened. And later Obama actively tried to lower the deficits. Trump on the other hand inherited a good economy with shrinking deficit, and WILLFULLY started to increase it through lower taxes on the rich and increased military spending.

Military spending angle is just an angle people push when they don't investigate the numbers.

...

All that presumes that we NEED to have this huge world-fighting military, which we dont. We dont NEED to spend more than the next biggest 7 countries combined. This is a fallacious argument for these insane levels of military spending that's been going on for decades.

In 2009, Obama's second year his military spending was 698 billion per NY times. Was 720 in 2010 and 717 in 2011 but cut by standards in 2013 to 610. So historically by the numbers Trumps request are not that far off from Obama's tenure. The article just wants you mad at it...and people wonder why people don't trust journalism???

Again, you're ignoring context. Tell me how many troops the US had deployed in active wars around the world when Obama took office? Now, tell me what that number is now?

well in context no other country has our military presence in Europe, Africa, South America and Asia. They dont call the President of the US the Leader of the Free World. Our presence is pretty much everywhere cuz of WW2. The fact is Trump actually cut military spending by 150 billion cuz the articles didnt bring the number in context, I called you out on it with articles of fact and you cant accept the fact but want to rage at the number. The fact is that military spending has went up every year. Every thing has. Military spending isnt causing our debt. It has only doubled since GW Bush (who was a lousy President) and has remained constant in budget depending on the President. The fact is Republicans are always going to spend more money on the military. Obama stated around 700 billion and withdrew troops (which was fine) and cut defense spending by 100 billion dollars and the military called him out saying they dont have the equipment to do their jobs. Its like telling teachers to teach without books. Give them the money they need to do their basic job and they are fine. Its why Republicans are viewed more pro-military and Democrats more pro-teacher. The only difference is that we arent 50th ranked in the world in our Navy or Army. We have China building up the China sea and broadening their Navy. Russia too. Do you think we can actually stop any foreign offensive with crossbows and spears?

Exactly. Russia invaded Ukraine (a UN delegate) and we did nothing. Syria gassed their own country short of genocide and we did nothing. You dont have to spend for the military when you let stuff happen outside your borders. Its rather isolationist. Its one of the reasons Trump won...in context.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4386 Posted by willpayton (22074 posts) - - Show Bio
@boschepg said:

@willpayton:

but..but...didnt the media and the Democrats constantly say that getting Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would mean the end to women's reproductive rights? Then why did he vote not to dissent against Planned Parenthood with the liberal judges? That makes no sense if what CNN and MSNBC were telling us was true.

I mean the world is ending right?

The US economy is tanking, right?

Tax cuts only benefited the rich and there is no wage rises, right?

There is no such thing as a caravan in Mexico, That was just him rallying up his base, right?

Canceling net neutrality would just mean we would have to pay higher cost on our internet bill, right?

That's just too many strawmen to deal with.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4387 Posted by willpayton (22074 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:

well in context no other country has our military presence in Europe, Africa, South America and Asia.

That's right, we've put ourselves in the position where we have to spend insane amounts of money, just to keep up that position, and then you argue that we HAVE to spend that money because otherwise we cant keep that position. What?

How about we just concentrate on defending the US? I dont think Canada or Mexico is about to launch a ground invasion any time soon, no matter what Trump would have you believe about a few thousand immigrants on foot.

They dont call the President of the US the Leader of the Free World.

"The free world" isnt paying taxes and they're not paying for our military spending, which is contributing to our massive deficits. I thought Trump wanted Europe to pay for their own defense? Oh well... I guess just as much as he said that Mexico was going to pay for a wall... lol.

Our presence is pretty much everywhere cuz of WW2.

Yes, and we've had this notion that we're the world's policeman since then. We've also had a doctrine about having to be ready to fight TWO major ground wars at the same time... which is unrealistic and unnecessary. This is why we have ridiculous military spending, and few seem willing to actually look critically at the core assumptions behind these ideas that are bankrupting us.

The fact is Trump actually cut military spending by 150 billion cuz the articles didnt bring the number in context, I called you out on it with articles of fact and you cant accept the fact but want to rage at the number. The fact is that military spending has went up every year. Every thing has. Military spending isnt causing our debt. It has only doubled since GW Bush (who was a lousy President) and has remained constant in budget depending on the President. The fact is Republicans are always going to spend more money on the military. Obama stated around 700 billion and withdrew troops (which was fine) and cut defense spending by 100 billion dollars and the military called him out saying they dont have the equipment to do their jobs. Its like telling teachers to teach without books. Give them the money they need to do their basic job and they are fine. Its why Republicans are viewed more pro-military and Democrats more pro-teacher. The only difference is that we arent 50th ranked in the world in our Navy or Army. We have China building up the China sea and broadening their Navy. Russia too. Do you think we can actually stop any foreign offensive with crossbows and spears?

What? How exactly did Trump cut military spending by $150 billion???

We dont need more spending for the military to do their job, what we need is for their job to stop being the insane one of trying to be everywhere and do everything. So, yeah, of course they wont be able to do it properly, since it's a crazy and unrealistic expectation. I dont really want to military to be everywhere in the world trying to secure our addiction to oil, defend everyone in Europe, AND everyone in Asia, and everyone in every other damn place.

Exactly. Russia invaded Ukraine (a UN delegate) and we did nothing. Syria gassed their own country short of genocide and we did nothing. You dont have to spend for the military when you let stuff happen outside your borders. Its rather isolationist. Its one of the reasons Trump won...in context.

So you're claiming that Trump won because he's isolationist, so now we should spend more on the military to make sure we can... not... be isolationist?

I have no idea what you're arguing for.

Yeah, Russia invaded Ukraine. What exactly were we going to do about it? Are we going to deploy 300,000 troops over there and go to war with Russia? You really want the US to be the policeman of the world? Because, I'll tell you what, there's not enough money coming into the government in taxes to pay for that.

If the military is having problem with aging equipment or insufficient equipment or whatever, it's certainly NOT because we're not spending enough. We have thousands of tanks sitting around that the Pentagon didnt even want. We've wasted TRILLIONS of dollars on programs like the F-35, the Zumwalt-class destroyers, and the Navy's LCS. And we have hundreds of bases around the world, AND we keep getting involved in military operations everywhere, or funding tyrants like the Saudis who are murdering children in Yemen.

I think we're spending enough... more than enough. What we need is to scale back what the US is trying to do around the world and the military will be just fine. Every other nation in the world gets along fine without trying to dominate the entire world, and I'm sure we can do it too.

Avatar image for boschepg
#4388 Posted by boschePG (6313 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: cuz the link I posted is his 2019 defense budget is 890 billion. you posted an article of 750 billion for 2020. That is 140 billion dollar cut. The government can only cut expendetures in increments related to the previous year related to their past stated need.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4389 Posted by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote.

No, it's not. Trump being President is in fact great evidence of how bad the EC is. Same with having millions of people who's vote are basically discounted.

There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President.

Circular argument. You want a system where "states" vote for president, because otherwise "states" woldnt vote for President... what?

Or, you mean that you want the people in those small states to have greater power than others in larger states. In that case, you just dont like democracy and want a few specific minorities to enforce their will on everyone else. Yeah... I dont think so.

While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states.

Again with the talk about "states". But, no talk about people.

In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

And again more talk about states doing this or that. This is nonsense. States dont vote for anyone, states dont have feelings or opinions, people do. The attitude among conservatives seems to be that they dont care about democracy or about people voting or having their say, they just care that people in smaller states get more power because they know it will help them. But you cant just outright come out with that argument, so it has to be rationalized in terms of small states somehow being unfairly treated or ignored or whatever. Sorry, but that doesnt fly.

Why do you ignore me willy boy. Why do you attack the admittedly weaker argument

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4390 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@supremegeneration: @heroup2112: @willpayton:

Anyone interested in understand why the Electoral College, and indeed the US political system in the Senate and House exists as it does today would be well advised to research the history of the Great Compromise.

This topic is very serious and foundational to the United States. The very same debate between proportional representation and equal representation for states happening today also happened at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and it nearly destroyed the founding of the United States itself, threatening to outright derail the ratification of the US Constitution by pitting small states against large ones. Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut were eventually able to propose a compromise that worked.

The main idea behind the Great Compromise was that there would be two national legislatures in the Congress. Members of the House would be allocated according to each state’s population and elected by direct vote of the people, pleasing one side of the argument. The Senate on the other hand would be appointed by State Legislatures and every state would get an equal amount of Senators, pleasing the other side.

The fundamental idea of protecting small states through equal representation in the Senate carries over into the formation of the electoral college, because of the way electoral votes area handed out. Seeing as the number of electoral votes designated to each state is based on a state’s combined number of representatives in the House and Senate, this is effectively a combination of the two opposing sides of this compromise.

This debate was already had and a compromise was already reached that was beneficial to both sides. Small states didn't have entirely equal power, but they had enough so that their interests would always be assuredly protected against the against potential tyranny of the majority. One of the few things I actually think might stand a shot in hell to spark a civil war in the US would be dissolving the electoral college, as it would be seen as a power grab by large states and an attempt to undermine both the founding principles of the United States and removing the reason many states signed on to this newfangled idea called the "United States of America" in the first place

Avatar image for doofasa
#4391 Edited by Doofasa (1844 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: @heroup2112: @decaf_wizard:

I'll chime in on the Electoral College vs Popular vote argument.

To me the Electoral College is a highly flawed attempt at a democracy, more akin to a representative republic. Democracy at it's core is about the choice/vote of the people, and as the election of a president is a national choice, every single person in America should have an equal say as to whom is elected president. The current EC system however, effectively means that some people's vote (usually from less populated areas) are more influential then others when it comes to the most important appointment the people of America make, which fly's in the face of democracy. No person's vote should be worth more then any others.

The argument that less popular states would not be represented fairly in government in a popular voting system is also flawed, as equal representation at a state level is already established through the senate. I'd also like to point out that under the current system THE MAJORITY of people are underrepresented in NATIONAL choices made by the American people, which would still be better then a minority being underrepresented. On top of that the EC leads to a myriad of others problems like gerrymandering that a popular vote system does not.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4392 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

@doofasa said:

The argument that less popular states would not be represented fairly in government in a popular voting system is also flawed, as equal representation at a state level is already established through the senate. I'd also like to point out that under the current system THE MAJORITY of people are underrepresented in NATIONAL choices made by the American people, which would still be better then a minority being underrepresented. On top of that the EC leads to a myriad of others problems like gerrymandering that a popular vote system does not.

I think the difference in perspective here is that I LIVE in a small province with no significant representation because of a proportional system that was unfairly smothered by years of legislation slated to large provinces. Let me tell you. It reeks.

Other than that I would point you to my post on the Great Compromise that shows how these systems were created. This debate was already had and decided when these exact issues existed in the exact same way they do now, and they found a system deemed fair to both camps. Now one side is clamouring to get 100% of their way because an election or two didn't go the way they wanted it to. In my mind, a fair system must have most important office in the United States capable of completely vetoing all legislative power of the house of representatives must be the one that is most equal and not controlled by the large state camp in this argument. Power would be too shifted to one side

Avatar image for outside_85
#4393 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@heroup2112 said:

@willpayton

Sorry I'm late getting back with you on this but the electoral college, while being created in 1780s, is still better than a simple popular plurality vote. There are a few reasons but the main reason is that it keeps smaller states from virtually not counting in elections for President. While they don't count nearly as much as say California, Texas, or New York with the electoral college keeps the smaller states from simply being DWARFED by these larger, more populous states. In effect the more populous states would be electing the president and have a virtual monopoly on who gets elected.

'We the people...'

Way to get on board @outside_85! Quoting the opening lines of the Constitution where in Article 12 the electoral college rationale is laid out. I'm proud of you taking the side of the constitution. Way to go!

It would be nice if you would one day.

Avatar image for doofasa
#4394 Posted by Doofasa (1844 posts) - - Show Bio

@doofasa said:

The argument that less popular states would not be represented fairly in government in a popular voting system is also flawed, as equal representation at a state level is already established through the senate. I'd also like to point out that under the current system THE MAJORITY of people are underrepresented in NATIONAL choices made by the American people, which would still be better then a minority being underrepresented. On top of that the EC leads to a myriad of others problems like gerrymandering that a popular vote system does not.

I think the difference in perspective here is that I LIVE in a small province with no significant representation because of a proportional system that was unfairly smothered by years of legislation slated to large provinces. Let me tell you. It reeks.

Other than that I would point you to my post on the Great Compromise that shows how these systems were created. This debate was already had and decided when these exact issues existed in the exact same way they do now, and they found a system deemed fair to both camps. Now one side is clamouring to get 100% of their way because an election or two didn't go the way they wanted it to. In my mind, a fair system must have most important office in the United States capable of completely vetoing all legislative power of the house of representatives must be the one that is most equal and not controlled by the large state camp in this argument. Power would be too shifted to one side

I can certainly relate to your perspective in that I'm from a sparsely populated but huge area of Western Australia that holds little sway in whom get's elected as our Prime Minister/ruling party. However it's important that we understand the majorities perspective and that each individual within that majorities perspective is just as important as my own. Mine shouldn't be held as more important just because there are less people whom share it.

The debate you're talking about occurred in one country, a long time ago. Internationally similar debates have occurred in all democracies, with all of them bar America determining that a popular vote is the more democratic system. So if you arguing the debate has already been won, you're right, the popular vote won. Also which side of the current political spectrum is clamoring for a popular vote should be irrelevant in determining if it is the more democratic system.

Avatar image for outside_85
#4395 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

To the above.

Yeah, I was kinda also under the impression that equal representation in America on a state level was already sorted out through the Senate with it's 2 seats per state?

Avatar image for abstractraze
#4396 Edited by AbstractRaze (2545 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

I completely understand what you're saying, and the thinking behind it, but there is a problem with it unfortunately in a union of states. Originally the concept for the US was a loose organization of 13 separate states that worked together when they ALL voted to (didn't work very well), so they decided (amid a LOT of controversy, and some minor threats of violent insurrection that actually ended up happening later on) to create what we have now: one nation with each state being a part of a whole and represented as equally as possible.

Hello dear heroup2112.

I still think that it's not working well, if it wouldn't be due the American unique patriotic spirit those keeping all the states in harmony despite the huge differences, this would end up very tragic, that's why spiritualism is necessary in order to equilibrate an unperfect world with unperfect systems, but this does not mean that one should abuse on it, materialism still plays a factor, but that's another topic.

You should start worrying about what is happening in the U.S, however, we all know about the wealthiest American state, which is California with a GDP of $2,747 billion following by a huge drop who's Texas with $1,696 billion, New York with $1,547 billion and then comes a huge drop again which is Florida with $967 billion, but then the real thing comes in.

We can understand that California has a huge GDP considering we're talking about the most populated American estate with 39,144,818 people, then comes Texas with 27,469,114 people, so we're talking about 11,675,074 less people than in California, then comes Florida with a population around the 20 million and New York with a population around the 17 million, however, how can you explain that California is ranking around the eighth place when it comes to their GDP per capita which is around the $60,359 and Texas in the sixteenth place with a GDP per capita of $53,737 while New York is ranking the second place with a GDP per capita of $65,220 or Florida with such low values of goods and services and to kill it even furthermore, a GDP per capita of $39,842 those ranking around the fortieth place, even though they have a greater population than New York and 7 million less than Texas?

How can you explain such centralism within the U.S and such unequal priority? The people of Florida are being treated like garbage, with lower living standards in comparison to the other states, they have a low GDP for what they should have.

If it wouldn't be because of conservativism, the U.S would have experienced multiple civil wars.

PS: The United States has a lot of similarities with Germany, in the German national anthem, it's stated 'Deutschland über alles' which means Germany over everything, however, this does not imply Germany over all other nations but the union between the German Bundesländern as a priority, which is the equivalent of the American states, so, from the American perspective, it would be ' The Union over everything' and such conservative view, is what keeps the U.S united despite their intern financial differences.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4397 Posted by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio

To the above.

Yeah, I was kinda also under the impression that equal representation in America on a state level was already sorted out through the Senate with it's 2 seats per state?

Common misconception, both this and the electoral college thing were part of the Great Compromise

@doofasa

The debate you're talking about occurred in one country, a long time ago. Internationally similar debates have occurred in all democracies, with all of them bar America determining that a popular vote is the more democratic system. So if you arguing the debate has already been won, you're right, the popular vote won. Also which side of the current political spectrum is clamoring for a popular vote should be irrelevant in determining if it is the more democratic system.

Right because the US is (especially back in the day) a fundamentally unique country. Back in the day especially, and still to this day, US states have far more autonomy than most provinces/states of most country and especially back in the day were highly, highly autonomous and the federal government wasn't really all that large or present in the lives of the average citizen, with most legal and economic matters being decided at a state or region level. Every state had (and has) its own constitution like a separate country.

You also have the issue of several states only actually signing the constitution in the first place because of the Great Compromise so changing any part of the constitution involved with that agreement would be highly problematic and probably would throw the country into turmoil

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4398 Edited by mrmonster (14666 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4399 Edited by decaf_wizard (16835 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for mrmonster
#4400 Edited by mrmonster (14666 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard said:

Its a good thing none of those things would be impeachable offenses as they don't relate to the abuse of presidential power

Actually, it's a good thing that it is. A felony level violation of campaign finance law can impeach a president. But as I've said before, it depends heavily on whether or not Mitch McConnell and other senate Republicans are going to grow a pair and do what's right.