Alternative to the Electoral College

[Lewdog]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

 

[Flash]

The Moon Bats swear up and down that Crooked Hillary didn't get any illegal alien votes in states swarming with the vermin that don't have stringent voter ID requirements. The filthy ass illegals that hate Trump's guts because he wants to send them back didn't take advantage of the stupid Liberal's invitation to vote.

The they wonder why we ridicule them for being so damn stupid.

 

[Pogo]

If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

REEEally. That's all they have to do, is it?

And this going to --- what, just "occur" to all the people of Utah simultaneously, is it? They'll be visited by an angel on the eve of the next election, and next day no one will have to say a word, everyone will just "know" what to do, will they?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and hazard a guess that you've never tried to organize a boycott.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

REEEally. That's all they have to do, is it?

And this going to --- what, just "occur" to all the people of Utah simultaneously, is it? They'll be visited by an angel on the eve of the next election, and next day no one will have to say a word, everyone will just "know" what to do, will they?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and hazard a guess that you've never tried to organize a boycott.

Cute response, but you're missing my point. I'm not saying that an entire state shifting its voting patterns is an easy thing, but it's WAY easier than a small city with a federally starved economy growing its population to out-pace and out-populate a larger one.

Both PV and EC have the same potential pitfall, but EC at least offers the POTENTIAL for recourse. PV does not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

 

[Pogo]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

States are not monolithic in the first place. Not everybody in Utah is "red" just because the Electrical College short-circuits their vote*. Those are just arbitrary and artificial illusions that are the direct result of the divisive nature of the EC and its absurd winner-take-all perversion. Part of how the EC keeps this country divided up into artificial warring factions.

* hee hee -- I kill me

 

[eagle7_31]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

States are not monolithic in the first place. Not everybody in Utah is "red" just because the Electrical College short-circuits their vote*. Those are just arbitrary and artificial illusions that are the direct result of the divisive nature of the EC and its absurd winner-take-all perversion. Part of how the EC keeps this country divided up into artificial warring factions.

* hee hee -- I kill me

Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small majority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.

In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.

If you base things purely on population, the likely eventuality is that the targeted pandering would calcify the population superiority of the deciding cities simply by virtue of ensuring that, among other things, the taxation and regulatory environment outside of those cities are comparatively untenable.

Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy. That said, I'm not at all adverse to winner-take-all being the state by state norm.

 

[Lewdog]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

States are not monolithic in the first place. Not everybody in Utah is "red" just because the Electrical College short-circuits their vote*. Those are just arbitrary and artificial illusions that are the direct result of the divisive nature of the EC and its absurd winner-take-all perversion. Part of how the EC keeps this country divided up into artificial warring factions.

* hee hee -- I kill me

Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small minority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.

In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.

If you base things purely on population, the likely eventuality is that the targeted pandering would calcify the population superiority of the deciding cities simply by virtue of ensuring that, among other things, the taxation and regulatory environment outside of those cities are comparatively untenable.

Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy.

Ok then, so how about breaking up the EC votes into percentages based on the PV of each state much like some primaries do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

Is that supposed to address my post?

No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?

 

[Lewdog]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

Is that supposed to address my post?

No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?

They can't... other than to say there is more at stake, and that a state is too much of a small sample.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

States are not monolithic in the first place. Not everybody in Utah is "red" just because the Electrical College short-circuits their vote*. Those are just arbitrary and artificial illusions that are the direct result of the divisive nature of the EC and its absurd winner-take-all perversion. Part of how the EC keeps this country divided up into artificial warring factions.

* hee hee -- I kill me

Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small minority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.

In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.

If you base things purely on population, the likely eventuality is that the targeted pandering would calcify the population superiority of the deciding cities simply by virtue of ensuring that, among other things, the taxation and regulatory environment outside of those cities are comparatively untenable.

Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy.

Ok then, so how about breaking up the EC votes into percentages based on the PV of each state much like some primaries do?

In reality that isn't really much different than just going popular vote period, although some marginal advantage still remains for small states, undeservedly.

 

[Lewdog]

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

States are not monolithic in the first place. Not everybody in Utah is "red" just because the Electrical College short-circuits their vote*. Those are just arbitrary and artificial illusions that are the direct result of the divisive nature of the EC and its absurd winner-take-all perversion. Part of how the EC keeps this country divided up into artificial warring factions.

* hee hee -- I kill me

Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small minority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.

In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.

If you base things purely on population, the likely eventuality is that the targeted pandering would calcify the population superiority of the deciding cities simply by virtue of ensuring that, among other things, the taxation and regulatory environment outside of those cities are comparatively untenable.

Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy.

Ok then, so how about breaking up the EC votes into percentages based on the PV of each state much like some primaries do?

In reality that isn't really much different than just going popular vote period, although some marginal advantage still remains for small states, undeservedly.

but that's what it is going to take. There will have to be some kind of compromise. I'm going to take on the task of figuring out what the EC final tally would be if the states did adopt this idea. Be back in a few with the results.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

Is that supposed to address my post?

No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?

They can't... other than to say there is more at stake, and that a state is too much of a small sample.

But they go on and on and on and on about 'counties', which are really to the states just the equivalents of what the states are to the nation.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

Is that supposed to address my post?

No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?

It's quite possibly because your question involves an arguably flawed assumption.

Vying for Funding, Rural Counties Often Lose to Big Cities

In Red States, Cities Can’t Win

There's 2 examples where, depending on the layout of the state, people inside or outside of the major cities do, in fact, have significant complaints about the state funding being granted disproportionately to the greater sources of influence for the party in power. This was about three minutes of google searching. I'm quite certain you can find more examples if you put your mind to it, rather than continuing to offer the assertion that this sort of thing doesn't happen at the state level without offering any backing to that assumption.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

States are not monolithic in the first place. Not everybody in Utah is "red" just because the Electrical College short-circuits their vote*. Those are just arbitrary and artificial illusions that are the direct result of the divisive nature of the EC and its absurd winner-take-all perversion. Part of how the EC keeps this country divided up into artificial warring factions.

* hee hee -- I kill me

Total semantics argument, but you've got a fair point. Monolithic is a poor way to describe many of the non-swing states. Let's say "predictable" in stead. Past the nitpicking of my wording, however, what you've just stead actually weakens your position. If many of the non-swing states are predictably granting their electoral votes to one party or the other based on a relatively small minority within the state, then it isn't all that inconceivable that they might shift and become less predictable.

In 1888, New York and New Jersey were swing states. In 1960, Illinois and Texas were the deciders, so whether you care to believe it or not, these patterns are relatively fluid.

If you base things purely on population, the likely eventuality is that the targeted pandering would calcify the population superiority of the deciding cities simply by virtue of ensuring that, among other things, the taxation and regulatory environment outside of those cities are comparatively untenable.

Also, look into Nebraska and Main. Winner-take-all is not a mandate or even an inevitable feature of the EC. It's a state-by-state decision that, even if you wanted electoral votes to be universally proportionate to the PV results in each state, you wouldn't have to do away with the EC to remedy.

Ok then, so how about breaking up the EC votes into percentages based on the PV of each state much like some primaries do?

I'd have no problem with any given state deciding to do this, though I would be fairly adverse to allowing the federal government to force them all to do it. If they want to be rid of the EC, I'd prefer to see them do it via the constitutional amendment process. By my reckoning, the danger of allowing circumventions of the constitution by way of setting rules that essentially nullify its standards completely dwarfs this entire issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

Is that supposed to address my post?

No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?

It's quite possibly because your question involves an arguably flawed assumption.

Vying for Funding, Rural Counties Often Lose to Big Cities

In Red States, Cities Can’t Win

There's 2 examples where, depending on the layout of the state, people inside or outside of the major cities do, in fact, have significant complaints about the state funding being granted disproportionately to the greater sources of influence for the party in power. This was about three minutes of google searching. I'm quite certain you can find more examples if you put your mind to it, rather than continuing to offer the assertion that this sort of thing doesn't happen at the state level without offering any backing to that assumption.

Your post is arguably pointless. The question is, why is the popular vote okay for electing governors,

if the popular vote represents some sort of unacceptable evil in the form of areas with denser populations having more voters?

 

[Lewdog]

Ok, not shitting you, but this is what it came out to. An exact tie at 269. No shit.

Alabama (9) Trump 6 Clinton 3
Alaska (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Arizona (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Arkansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
California (55) Trump 18 Clinton 37
Colorado (9) Trump 4 Clinton 5
Connecticut (7) Trump 3 Clinton 4
Delaware (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
DC (3) Trump 0 Clinton 3
Florida (29) Trump 15 Clinton 14
Georgia (16) Trump 9 Clinton 7
Hawaii (4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
Idaho (4) Trump 3 Clinton 1
Illinois (20) Trump 9 Clinton 11
Indiana (11) Trump 6 Clinton 5
Iowa (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
Kansas (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Kentucky (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Louisiana (8) Trump 5 Clinton 3
Maine (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
Maryland (10) Trump 4 Clinton 6
Massachusetts (11) Trump 4 Clinton 7
Michigan (16) Trump 8 Clinton 8
Minnesota (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Mississippi (6) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Missouri (10) Trump 6 Clinton 4
Montana (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Nebraska (5) Trump 3 Clinton 2
Nevada (6) Trump 3 Clinton 3
New Hampshire (4) Trump 2 Clinton 2
New Jersey (14) Trump 7 Clinton 7
New Mexico (5) Trump 2 Clinton 3
New York (29) Trump 12 Clinton 17
North Carolina (15) Trump 8 Clinton 7
North Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Ohio (18) Trump 10 Clinton 8
Oklahoma (7) Trump 5 Clinton 2
Oregon (7) Trump 4 Clinton 3
Pennsylvania (20) Trump 10 Clinton 10
Rhode Island ( 4) Trump 1 Clinton 3
South Carolina (9) Trump 5 Clinton 4
South Dakota (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1
Tennessee (11) Trump 7 Clinton 4
Texas (38) Trump 20 Clinton 18
Utah (60) Trump 4 Clinton 2
Vermont (3) Trump 1 Clinton 2
Virginia (13) Trump 6 Clinton 7
Washington (12) Trump 5 Clinton 7
West Virginia (5) Trump 4 Clinton 1
Wisconsin (10) Trump 5 Clinton 5
Wyoming (3) Trump 2 Clinton 1

Trump 269 Clinton 269

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

Governors are elected by the popular vote. Every state has urban areas. Does the election of governors by the popular vote result in chaos?

Has electing governors by the popular vote destroyed our states?

If the results were reversed (Hillary winning with EC, Trump the popular vote) you and a lot of other Clinton supporters would be quiet as mice.

Is that supposed to address my post?

No one has a good answer for what I've said above. I wonder why that is?

It's quite possibly because your question involves an arguably flawed assumption.

Vying for Funding, Rural Counties Often Lose to Big Cities

In Red States, Cities Can’t Win

There's 2 examples where, depending on the layout of the state, people inside or outside of the major cities do, in fact, have significant complaints about the state funding being granted disproportionately to the greater sources of influence for the party in power. This was about three minutes of google searching. I'm quite certain you can find more examples if you put your mind to it, rather than continuing to offer the assertion that this sort of thing doesn't happen at the state level without offering any backing to that assumption.

Your post is arguably pointless. The question is, why is the popular vote okay for electing governors,

if the popular vote represents some sort of unacceptable evil in the form of areas with denser populations having more voters?

Pointing out that the popular vote has problems even when enacted at the state level was pointless? Sorry, I thought that when you said "result in chaos" you were being hyperbolic, I didn't realize you meant that literally. Fine, I concede. The popular vote for state governers has never, to my knowledge, resulted in chaos. Regarding the approximately zero people here who have claimed that going from EC to PV would result in literal chaos, you have my blessing to consider their arguments soundly discredited.

Now, if we're done addressing arguments that nobody's actually making. . .

The reason it's more acceptable to have a popular vote at a smaller level is largely a matter of the scope of influence as it relates to the individual voter. First off, in accordance with our constitution and with the concept of a federalist system in general, individual states are legally capable of enacting laws that can affect the lives of that state's residents significantly more intimately than laws enacted by the federal government. When the individual voter literally has more of his/her freedoms hanging in the balance of potential legislation, it's only right that he/she should have a greater individual say in the passage of that legislation.

Aside from that, given that each of the 50 states has its own tax rates, regulatory environment, demographic break down, and even culture, the odds of any given voter being ignorant of the full scope of the impact of any proposal made at the federal level are potentially 50 times greater than the odds of the same voter being ignorant of the full scope of the impact of state-wide legislation.