Alternative to the Electoral College

[Not2BSubjugated]

the EC system has considerably more potential mobility in terms of which areas are currently important than we would have with a PV system that would eventually perpetually incentivize people to live in the foremost population centers.

Huh?? Why would it do that? Whether you live in a city or not has no bearing on what your vote means, PV or no PV.

Who would live in a city if they weren't financially forced to? Not me.

I feel like we've been over this, but here goes another. . .

The reason people would be perpetually incentivized to live in the largest cities is because the largest cities would eventually receive a greater and greater, disproportionate amount of federal support as the parties competed with one another to campaign in those population centers that would be deciding the elections. The reason the EC doesn't stagnate in a similar fashion is because if enough people in a safe state get fed up with the shape of politics and decide to shake things up, BAM. New swing state. If nationwide general elections were decided by PV, you'd eventually see a macrocosm of what happens currently in blue states, where the most populous areas, due to their ability to decide elections, receive that disproportionate lion's share of statewide funding, and the surrounding rural areas get shit on by way of having to pay into the tax fund while not receiving their share of the benefits those taxes pay for. Go to nationwide PV and you would essentially be able to take a snap shot of the most populous cities in the country at that moment, and virtually guarantee that those places would decide the elections forevermore. They'd end up with the best schools, the best roads, a disproportionate share of tax incentives to start businesses within their districts, etc., while the rest of the country would have to fit the bill while their streets and schools went to shit, and while their businesses picked up and moved into the large cities where the subsidies would allow them the greatest profitability. Thus, more and more people would be incentivized to move into those cities being pandered to for their voting power, if for no other reason than to actually partake in the basic benefits of lopsided government largesse.

That's why there's less mobility in a PV system in terms of which places are being pandered to by the feds. In the EC system, that dynamic inevitably gets shaken up every time a safe state's politics shift, which does happen, so it's not really possible to lock down the country by favoring the same people in perpetuity. In a PV system, the only way the system gets shaken up once the pandering starts is if there's a massive population shift away from a major population center. That shift would be made all the more unlikely by the fact that those population centers would, in all likelihood, have better schools, better roads, and more employment and business opportunities than any area not already on the list of the most populous cities in the country.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

POTUS should be by PV, end of story. That would utterly change the manner in which candidates campaign BTW and would not, IMHO, change the ability one bit for them to be elected as far as D vs R. Republicans would have a great stage to run on as they could reach millions of people at one time in cities. Dems would have to reach out to far less populated areas to win over new voters.

Zackly. Candidates would finally be seen in places they don't bother to go now because the EC has them either locked-out or locked-in. Hillary would have been in Kansas. Rump might have gone to Connecticut.

It would also mean those voters who actually live in Kansas or Connecticut --- or Utah or Oregon or Texas or New York --- would actually have a reason to leave the house on Election Day since their state would not have been already unanimously decided as "red" or "blue". All that bullshit goes away, and turnout goes way up.

Liberals Are Frauds Who Love Screwing the Little States

To be consistent with the mindless talking points PV father-figure mentors drum into their drooling mind-slaves, the Senate would have to be abolished. It is far more unrepresentative to have Rhode Island with the same number of votes there as California. But no, Netwit copycats are never allowed to follow their assigned chants further and see what conclusions those meows have to lead to if they are to be logically valid.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

[Q

Reeeeally. The EC should do that just because some wag on the internet invented a bullshit story about "illegals voting" --- that nobody can prove?

The bar's pretty low for summa y'all.

Excuse me but are you under the impression that no illegals voted? Even in states where no voter ID is even required or the laws are very lax? Like California with its millions of illegals?

Do you really believe that especially when a candidate was running that opposed illegal immigration?

Are you really that naive?

You Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule you so much for stupidity and this is a great example.

Classic Argument from Ignorance.
"I can contrive a way that it could have happened -- therefore it did happen".

Wusses Let the Pushiest Define the Issues

You have a smug and aggressive, but ignorant attitude about fallacies. Human nature being what it is, especially with so many illegals organized, any voting process that leaves itself wide open for unqualified voters to participate must be thrown out. Patriots should not be distracted by this PV decoy, but change the media debate to whether the electoral votes of loosely qualifying states should be rejected by the Electoral College.

The Hillalosers have had their turn. Now the question should be whether Trump won in a landslide of qualified voters.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

the EC system has considerably more potential mobility in terms of which areas are currently important than we would have with a PV system that would eventually perpetually incentivize people to live in the foremost population centers.

Huh?? Why would it do that? Whether you live in a city or not has no bearing on what your vote means, PV or no PV.

Who would live in a city if they weren't financially forced to? Not me.

I feel like we've been over this, but here goes another. . .

The reason people would be perpetually incentivized to live in the largest cities is because the largest cities would eventually receive a greater and greater, disproportionate amount of federal support as the parties competed with one another to campaign in those population centers that would be deciding the elections. The reason the EC doesn't stagnate in a similar fashion is because if enough people in a safe state get fed up with the shape of politics and decide to shake things up, BAM. New swing state. If nationwide general elections were decided by PV, you'd eventually see a macrocosm of what happens currently in blue states, where the most populous areas, due to their ability to decide elections, receive that disproportionate lion's share of statewide funding, and the surrounding rural areas get shit on by way of having to pay into the tax fund while not receiving their share of the benefits those taxes pay for. Go to nationwide PV and you would essentially be able to take a snap shot of the most populous cities in the country at that moment, and virtually guarantee that those places would decide the elections forevermore. They'd end up with the best schools, the best roads, a disproportionate share of tax incentives to start businesses within their districts, etc., while the rest of the country would have to fit the bill while their streets and schools went to shit, and while their businesses picked up and moved into the large cities where the subsidies would allow them the greatest profitability. Thus, more and more people would be incentivized to move into those cities being pandered to for their voting power, if for no other reason than to actually partake in the basic benefits of lopsided government largesse.

That's why there's less mobility in a PV system in terms of which places are being pandered to by the feds. In the EC system, that dynamic inevitably gets shaken up every time a safe state's politics shift, which does happen, so it's not really possible to lock down the country by favoring the same people in perpetuity. In a PV system, the only way the system gets shaken up once the pandering starts is if there's a massive population shift away from a major population center. That shift would be made all the more unlikely by the fact that those population centers would, in all likelihood, have better schools, better roads, and more employment and business opportunities than any area not already on the list of the most populous cities in the country.

That's also the reason states have bicameral legislatures. Many state capitals are in small towns like Springfield, Illinois. Frankfort doesn't even make the top 10 of Kentucky's most populated cities.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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:

None of the above. The constitution stipulates how our representatives are elected.
People need to come to grasp with that UNCHANGING FACT

 

[Pogo]

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:

None of the above. The constitution stipulates how our representatives are elected.
People need to come to grasp with that UNCHANGING FACT

Completely irrelevant. This thread isn't about "representatives"; it's about Electors. And the Constitution absolutely does not stipulate how those are selected.

 

[Pogo]

[Q

Reeeeally. The EC should do that just because some wag on the internet invented a bullshit story about "illegals voting" --- that nobody can prove?

The bar's pretty low for summa y'all.

Excuse me but are you under the impression that no illegals voted? Even in states where no voter ID is even required or the laws are very lax? Like California with its millions of illegals?

Do you really believe that especially when a candidate was running that opposed illegal immigration?

Are you really that naive?

You Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule you so much for stupidity and this is a great example.

Classic Argument from Ignorance.
"I can contrive a way that it could have happened -- therefore it did happen".

Wusses Let the Pushiest Define the Issues

You have a smug and aggressive, but ignorant attitude about fallacies. Human nature being what it is, especially with so many illegals organized, any voting process that leaves itself wide open for unqualified voters to participate must be thrown out. Patriots should not be distracted by this PV decoy, but change the media debate to whether the electoral votes of loosely qualifying states should be rejected by the Electoral College.

The Hillalosers have had their turn. Now the question should be whether Trump won in a landslide of qualified voters.

Takes a special kind of dimbulb to start railing about "fallacies" and then in the next sentence, trot one in.

 

[HenryBHough]

If the system were changed the Snowflake Generation would, upon their next loss, demand it be changed back.

Ob-la-di, Ob-la-dahhhhhhhh!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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:

We should build a giant thunder dome, two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.

What about third parties?

Under the Present System, Third Parties Are Pointless

Perot got 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes. Under split voting, but keeping the same compensation for the less populous states, he probably would have gotten about 23%. Also, he probably would have qualified for a two-man runoff and become President, because all the "A vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" voters wouldn't have been able to say that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

[Q

Reeeeally. The EC should do that just because some wag on the internet invented a bullshit story about "illegals voting" --- that nobody can prove?

The bar's pretty low for summa y'all.

Excuse me but are you under the impression that no illegals voted? Even in states where no voter ID is even required or the laws are very lax? Like California with its millions of illegals?

Do you really believe that especially when a candidate was running that opposed illegal immigration?

Are you really that naive?

You Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule you so much for stupidity and this is a great example.

Classic Argument from Ignorance.
"I can contrive a way that it could have happened -- therefore it did happen".

Wusses Let the Pushiest Define the Issues

You have a smug and aggressive, but ignorant attitude about fallacies. Human nature being what it is, especially with so many illegals organized, any voting process that leaves itself wide open for unqualified voters to participate must be thrown out. Patriots should not be distracted by this PV decoy, but change the media debate to whether the electoral votes of loosely qualifying states should be rejected by the Electoral College.

The Hillalosers have had their turn. Now the question should be whether Trump won in a landslide of qualified voters.

Takes a special kind of dimbulb to start railing about "fallacies" and then in the next sentence, trot one in.

As We Drift Backwards to Medieval Logic-Chopping

Whatever your authoritarian mentors tell you to say is of no interest to independent thinkers.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Well, no they really would not.

Lets say that you live in a republican state. Would you seriously consider changing your vote to a democrat because the current democrats in power shoveled all the money to swing states?

I doubt you would do such a thing at all.

LMFAO! I voted for Obama in '08, bud. Like many, I was less than pleased with the economic mess we had deteriorated into under Bush II and figured a change was in order. I also wasn't yet very well versed in the social justice madness that now seems to completely own the democrat party. Point being, yes, I actually would vote for a democrat if I felt they were the better choice for WHATEVER reason, and regardless of whether I was in a blue or red state.

And I'll say it again. Fairly recent history has shown that it's not only possible for states to shift their party loyalty, but it actually happens. As recently as 1960 Texas and Illinois were swing states. So yes, the EC system has considerably more potential mobility in terms of which areas are currently important than we would have with a PV system that would eventually perpetually incentivize people to live in the foremost population centers.

Yes, it happens. I have not contended that it does not. What I contend does not happen is that they switch based on the money funneled to swing states and not to predictable ones.

 

[Pogo]

[Q

Reeeeally. The EC should do that just because some wag on the internet invented a bullshit story about "illegals voting" --- that nobody can prove?

The bar's pretty low for summa y'all.

Excuse me but are you under the impression that no illegals voted? Even in states where no voter ID is even required or the laws are very lax? Like California with its millions of illegals?

Do you really believe that especially when a candidate was running that opposed illegal immigration?

Are you really that naive?

You Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule you so much for stupidity and this is a great example.

Classic Argument from Ignorance.
"I can contrive a way that it could have happened -- therefore it did happen".

Wusses Let the Pushiest Define the Issues

You have a smug and aggressive, but ignorant attitude about fallacies. Human nature being what it is, especially with so many illegals organized, any voting process that leaves itself wide open for unqualified voters to participate must be thrown out. Patriots should not be distracted by this PV decoy, but change the media debate to whether the electoral votes of loosely qualifying states should be rejected by the Electoral College.

The Hillalosers have had their turn. Now the question should be whether Trump won in a landslide of qualified voters.

Takes a special kind of dimbulb to start railing about "fallacies" and then in the next sentence, trot one in.

As We Drift Backwards to Medieval Logic-Chopping

Whatever your authoritarian mentors tell you to say is of no interest to independent thinkers.

Agree. As an independent thinker nobody tells me what to say --- that's obvious.

But none of that has jack shit to do with the point above, to wit - you complained about "fallacies" and then immediately brought in a fictional strawman without even taking a breath.

A strawman, one notes, that was contrived elsewhere in the Echobubble and passed around like some proverb, despite its having no supporting evidence whatsoever. So it would appear to be yourself who is attached to said authoritarian mentors.

Fix that.

 

[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.

Well, no they really would not.

Lets say that you live in a republican state. Would you seriously consider changing your vote to a democrat because the current democrats in power shoveled all the money to swing states?

I doubt you would do such a thing at all.

LMFAO! I voted for Obama in '08, bud. Like many, I was less than pleased with the economic mess we had deteriorated into under Bush II and figured a change was in order. I also wasn't yet very well versed in the social justice madness that now seems to completely own the democrat party. Point being, yes, I actually would vote for a democrat if I felt they were the better choice for WHATEVER reason, and regardless of whether I was in a blue or red state.

And I'll say it again. Fairly recent history has shown that it's not only possible for states to shift their party loyalty, but it actually happens. As recently as 1960 Texas and Illinois were swing states. So yes, the EC system has considerably more potential mobility in terms of which areas are currently important than we would have with a PV system that would eventually perpetually incentivize people to live in the foremost population centers.

Yes, it happens. I have not contended that it does not. What I contend does not happen is that they switch based on the money funneled to swing states and not to predictable ones.

It's never happened for that reason because the electoral college is at least fluid enough that federal politicians know it would be suicide to try and prop up the current swing states because the game could change next cycle. That's my ENTIRE POINT. It doesn't happen in the EC system, it would happen in a PV system.