2020 US Election Thread

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It pretty much nullifies the concept of one vote per person.

I think that's somewhat of a simplification, it essentially means votes from different states are weighted differently.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I think that's somewhat of a simplification, it essentially means votes from different states are weighted differently.

Which nullifies one vote per person. That’s just a fact.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I think that's somewhat of a simplification, it essentially means votes from different states are weighted differently.

I guess that one person, one vote doesn't imply an equal vote, so nullification is a bit of a hyperbole. That said, it bastardizes the concept at best if John's vote in Kentucky is counts as one vote and Toby's vote in New York only counts as 3/5 of a vote. Plus, the electoral college was intended to keep populists like Trump out of office and while I'm annoyed that they weren't successful, that reeks of aristocratic puppeteering, don't it?

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I guess that one person, one vote doesn't imply an equal vote, so nullification is a bit of a hyperbole. That said, it bastardizes the concept at best if John's vote in Kentucky is counts as one vote and Toby's vote in New York only counts as 3/5 of a vote. Plus, the electoral college was intended to keep populists like Trump out of office and while I'm annoyed that they weren't successful, that reeks of aristocratic puppeteering, don't it?

Sure, I'm not disagreeing that it undermines the concept of a pure majoritarian democracy, but is that a bad thing? Should two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner (yes, yes, a gross simplification)?

Yes, the electoral college was designed to keep populists and unqualified candidates out of office, and to prevent tyranny of the majority - as you point out, the system is not perfect. But I think it'd be more productive to look at how most states award electors (a winner-take-all basis) and make improvements - perhaps implement ranked-choice voting like Maine did - rather than just throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare the electoral college to be worthless and ineffective.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

How you gonna build them roads? You didn't build that.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

What you need to do is read up on what’s going on to the earth’s environment.

Yeah, I'll do that, right after I put another baby into my girlfriend. And take my nice petrol-fuelled car to get me a cheeseburger.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Sure, I'm not disagreeing that it undermines the concept of a pure majoritarian democracy, but is that a bad thing? Should two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner (yes, yes, a gross simplification)?

Ja.

Yes, the electoral college was designed to keep populists and unqualified candidates out of office, and to prevent tyranny of the majority - as you point out, the system is not perfect. But I think it'd be more productive to look at how most states award electors (a winner-take-all basis) and make improvements - perhaps implement ranked-choice voting like Maine did - rather than just throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare the electoral college to be worthless and ineffective.

The winner take all system should be done away with as well, I don't see that whatabouting any effectiveness into the electoral college.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Ja.

We'll have to disagree on that then.

Originally Posted by Frownland

The winner take all system should be done away with as well, I don't see that whatabouting any effectiveness into the electoral college.

I think you're right, not alone it wouldn't. Perhaps implement a winner-take-all system for electoral votes, implement ranked choice voting, and have viable third parties and you might have real alternatives to our political duopoly and said alternatives might have real solutions - or at least steps in the right direction.

(I know, I know, I'm dreaming)

[jwb]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Sure, I'm not disagreeing that it undermines the concept of a pure majoritarian democracy, but is that a bad thing? Should two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner (yes, yes, a gross simplification)?

Yes, the electoral college was designed to keep populists and unqualified candidates out of office, and to prevent tyranny of the majority - as you point out, the system is not perfect. But I think it'd be more productive to look at how most states award electors (a winner-take-all basis) and make improvements - perhaps implement ranked-choice voting like Maine did - rather than just throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare the electoral college to be worthless and ineffective.



How you gonna build them roads? You didn't build that.



Yeah, I'll do that, right after I put another baby into my girlfriend. And take my nice petrol-fuelled car to get me a cheeseburger.

what benefit does the electoral college offer? I understand it was originally intended to give smaller states more power but why is that even a good thing?

The end result is most people's vote literally doesn't matter. I'm not sure what practical reasons there are to keep it around.