Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Pretty sure it's already exploded   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, United States Senate, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, Democratic Party, electoral college, popular vote  
•       •       •

3744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2020 at 9:35 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-17 7:13:17 PM  
Ross Perot received 1/5 of the vote when he ran and it counted for exactly zero. Helluva system.
 
2020-05-17 7:17:31 PM  

edmo: Ross Perot received 1/5 of the vote when he ran and it counted for exactly zero. Helluva system.


Crazy system by design.

But slave owners from 200 year ago designed it. And you can't question their wisdom
 
2020-05-17 7:18:17 PM  
The electoral system was ostensibly designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining office.  Yet here we are.
 
2020-05-17 7:29:30 PM  
On the narrow question, denying states the ability to require electors to support the candidate to whom they are pledged would, as Kavanaugh said, "potentially disenfranchise voters in the state."

LOL - since when do the f*cking Republicans give a shiat if voters are disenfranchised?
 
2020-05-17 7:33:10 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: On the narrow question, denying states the ability to require electors to support the candidate to whom they are pledged would, as Kavanaugh said, "potentially disenfranchise voters in the state."

LOL - since when do the f*cking Republicans give a shiat if voters are disenfranchised?


There's a color chart for that
 
2020-05-17 7:34:54 PM  
I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.
 
2020-05-17 7:37:15 PM  

PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.


Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat
 
2020-05-17 7:53:28 PM  

Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat


The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.
 
2020-05-17 8:11:36 PM  

PreMortem: Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat

The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.


Trump didn't win the popular vote, what other demagogues are you referring to?
 
2020-05-17 8:25:22 PM  

PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.


But who decides who "merits" being in charge? Remember, Trumpolini thinks his feckless son-in-law should be running just about every government department.
 
2020-05-17 8:28:07 PM  

PreMortem: Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat

The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.


I 100% reject your assertion that the popular vote will get you, well you said populist, but I'll say Donald Trump
 
2020-05-17 8:32:24 PM  
The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.
 
2020-05-17 8:40:05 PM  

Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.


That wouldn't help. I remember doing the math, I'm drunk right now, but you can give each state perfect representation in the EC and you still get Trump.

The issue isn't how you make up the EC, the issue is not having 1 person 1 vote
 
2020-05-17 9:01:40 PM  

Gubbo: Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.

That wouldn't help. I remember doing the math, I'm drunk right now, but you can give each state perfect representation in the EC and you still get Trump.

The issue isn't how you make up the EC, the issue is not having 1 person 1 vote


I understand, but it is far easier to add seats than it is to get rid of the EC. Personally, I place the blame for us having Trump on the combination of apathetic voters who didn't cast a vote along with the protest voters. The margin of Trump's victory was 77,000 votes over three states. The number of Jill Stein votes exceeded the margin of victory in those states IIRC.
 
2020-05-17 9:36:27 PM  
Cover your nose!
 
2020-05-17 9:40:43 PM  
Pretty sure we need to continue a steady flow of bull**** moving through the core. We need pundits, spin doctors, and trolls.

\3.6 roentgen
\\not great, not terrible
\\\we will all be rewarded with slashies.
\\\\really got nothing, just angry with our country
 
2020-05-17 9:41:38 PM  

PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.


So... hereditary aristocracy with de facto or explicit slavery?

Because that is very literally what a "meritocracy" has become within a generation if not less 100% of the time historically, without a single exception in the entirety of known human existence.
 
2020-05-17 9:42:19 PM  

Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.


Increasing the size of the House would not fix the EC.
 
2020-05-17 9:43:02 PM  

kudayta: The electoral system was ostensibly designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining office.  Yet here we are.


No, but that's how it's been sold.
 
2020-05-17 9:44:39 PM  
Meritocracy is always ALWAYS the powerful get more powerful. The rich get richer.

Those with "merit" get to continually define what merit is. And it usually, for some reason, seems to line up with whatever is rich and white.

Meritocracy is for businesses and institutions. Not for voting. Because then it becomes "meritocracy" which quickly devolves into the worst of conservativism.
 
2020-05-17 9:46:42 PM  

Gubbo: The issue isn't how you make up the EC, the issue is not having 1 person 1 vote


The issue is that the EC is no longer free to vote in a way that protects democracy from itself... it *should* have taken a look at Trump and voted for Ms. Clinton.  But it could not, because of laws controlling the electors.

Not saying it's the ideal system, but it should have been a last ditch emergency override to prevent what we have now.
 
2020-05-17 9:47:36 PM  

Brosephus: Gubbo: Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.

That wouldn't help. I remember doing the math, I'm drunk right now, but you can give each state perfect representation in the EC and you still get Trump.

The issue isn't how you make up the EC, the issue is not having 1 person 1 vote

I understand, but it is far easier to add seats than it is to get rid of the EC. Personally, I place the blame for us having Trump on the combination of apathetic voters who didn't cast a vote along with the protest voters. The margin of Trump's victory was 77,000 votes over three states. The number of Jill Stein votes exceeded the margin of victory in those states IIRC.


I lay the blame at the feet of the party that for three straight decades has campaigned (hand in hand with a news media) for the dissolution of objective reality.

The republicans have built a base that is so bone headely stupid and motivated by fear but ALSO has no filter for consensus based reality. Their base will believe anything as long as it satisfies their fears.
 
2020-05-17 9:48:55 PM  

kudayta: The electoral system was ostensibly designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining office.  Yet here we are.


the EC gives more weight to rual state voters than city/large state voters.  it helped Trumper get in the white house.
 
2020-05-17 9:50:45 PM  

Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.


The EC doesn't result in candidates being able to win POTUS while losing the popular vote on account of the extra weight given to the smaller population states.

It returns results like 2016 because the way electors are allocated it rewards narrow wins in large population states over anything else.

Trump owes his win while losing the popular vote to narrow wins in PA and FL, two of the most populated states in the Union.

Rerun the results with more reps and the outcome is the same no matter how many you add.
 
2020-05-17 9:51:38 PM  
A Republican hasn't won the popular vote in 32 years*. The EC remains so a monied minority that can't sustain their wealth without the rule of law bent in their favor can dictate the results. 

A Republican colleague parroted the line 'If we go by popular vote, Republicans will never win again,' straight-faced, as though he was making a point. Another complained about people in more densely populated areas having more votes.

I'm not kidding. It's circular logic, but the circle doesn't actually connect.

* Yes, I'm aware 2000 Republican nominee, President George Bush's son, George W. Bush, won the popular vote in 2004 over Tall Dukakis, but since he lost in 2000, it isn't likely Governor Bush would have run again. And the President, Al Gore, wouldn't lose his home state again.
 
2020-05-17 9:53:39 PM  
I'm really hoping that SCOTUS rules allowing faithless electors, and the chaos envisioned by some of the justices comes to be. Anything that accelerates the possible elimination of the Electoral College should be encouraged.
 
2020-05-17 9:55:15 PM  
Mandatory voting would help as well.
 
2020-05-17 9:55:42 PM  
Galaxy Quest - Exploded
Youtube 5UwKiAfLMz0
 
2020-05-17 9:57:02 PM  

YabbaDabbaDouchebag: * Yes, I'm aware 2000 Republican nominee, President George Bush's son, George W. Bush, won the popular vote in 2004 over Tall Dukakis, but since he lost in 2000, it isn't likely Governor Bush would have run again. And the President, Al Gore, wouldn't lose his home state again.


The 2004 election is worth looking at for the EC. Republicans don't like to talk about it but they came very close to winning the popular vote by a wide margin while losing the EC.

If Kerry had fared marginally better in OH he'd have won 2004 with a major popular vote deficit.
 
2020-05-17 9:57:08 PM  

kudayta: The electoral system was ostensibly designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining office.  Yet here we are.


Funny how it did the opposite.
 
2020-05-17 9:59:19 PM  

PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.


You'll just get wealthy families warp the system to get their moron children special placements, like George W. Bush and Jared Kushner and Donald Trump. I mean, it's just the system we have now.
 
2020-05-17 9:59:58 PM  

Target Builder: YabbaDabbaDouchebag: * Yes, I'm aware 2000 Republican nominee, President George Bush's son, George W. Bush, won the popular vote in 2004 over Tall Dukakis, but since he lost in 2000, it isn't likely Governor Bush would have run again. And the President, Al Gore, wouldn't lose his home state again.

The 2004 election is worth looking at for the EC. Republicans don't like to talk about it but they came very close to winning the popular vote by a wide margin while losing the EC.

If Kerry had fared marginally better in OH he'd have won 2004 with a major popular vote deficit.


Man, would that have been hilarious.
 
2020-05-17 10:01:03 PM  
The problem is that the country is filled with self entitled raging dumbasses on both sides of the spectrum
 
2020-05-17 10:04:34 PM  

kudayta: The electoral system was ostensibly designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining office.  Yet here we are.


Yeah, the ONE time it was meant to stop some lunatic from taking office, it didn't work as intended.
 
2020-05-17 10:17:43 PM  

PreMortem: Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat

The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.


The solution to uninformed or demagogic voting isn't to disenfranchise voters, but to create a system which rewards effective legislators and limits incompetent ones.  I think that upon entering the Senate or House, legislators should have to sit a series of exams designed by a cross section of colleges from around the country.  Want to serve on a science committee?  You have to demonstrate that you have a fundamental understanding of science.  Same for Education, Law, Foreign Affairs, Economics, Taxation, and Budgeting.  If you fail to demonstrate competency, you can't serve on committees.  Maybe there are further restrictions - you can't introduce legislation or vote to uphold a filibuster.  If voters realize their Representatives are incompetent, perhaps they'll be incentivized to elect better candidates.
 
2020-05-17 10:25:44 PM  

Jacobin: The problem is that the country is filled with self entitled raging dumbasses on both sides of the spectrum


The problem is there are "sides." If there were more parties, you could vote for someone that really represented your views.

I think a lot of people vote not FOR things but AGAINST things. Say a conservative who's against abortion and against gun control, he's going to vote Republican. It's the only choice. What if you're a religious liberal person who is against abortion? If abortion is truly the thing you care about most, you have to bite the bullet and vote for somebody you may not like in any other fashion. Any single issue voter has little choice but to surrender their other desires. Why should you have to do that?

If we had more parties, those issue voters might have more choices which would make things a lot more interesting and I'd wager a lot more would get done. You can't get a consensus with two viewpoints very often but with 5 or 6 parties, maybe you could get some things done. And you could be a truly independent voter.

For third parties to work, the EC has to go and straight vote counting has to become the norm. Otherwise, as a famous man has said, it's "rigged."
 
2020-05-17 10:26:51 PM  

qorkfiend: Target Builder: YabbaDabbaDouchebag: * Yes, I'm aware 2000 Republican nominee, President George Bush's son, George W. Bush, won the popular vote in 2004 over Tall Dukakis, but since he lost in 2000, it isn't likely Governor Bush would have run again. And the President, Al Gore, wouldn't lose his home state again.

The 2004 election is worth looking at for the EC. Republicans don't like to talk about it but they came very close to winning the popular vote by a wide margin while losing the EC.

If Kerry had fared marginally better in OH he'd have won 2004 with a major popular vote deficit.

Man, would that have been hilarious.


If that had happened we would no longer have the Electoral College today
 
2020-05-17 10:27:50 PM  

Jacobin: The problem is that the country is filled with self entitled raging dumbasses on both sides of the spectrum


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-17 10:40:12 PM  

Target Builder: YabbaDabbaDouchebag: * Yes, I'm aware 2000 Republican nominee, President George Bush's son, George W. Bush, won the popular vote in 2004 over Tall Dukakis, but since he lost in 2000, it isn't likely Governor Bush would have run again. And the President, Al Gore, wouldn't lose his home state again.

The 2004 election is worth looking at for the EC. Republicans don't like to talk about it but they came very close to winning the popular vote by a wide margin while losing the EC.

If Kerry had fared marginally better in OH he'd have won 2004 with a major popular vote deficit.


Considering the amount of election fraud the Republicans engaged in in that election, it is actually not remotely clear that Bush won the popular or electoral vote.
 
2020-05-17 10:47:31 PM  

Gubbo: edmo: Ross Perot received 1/5 of the vote when he ran and it counted for exactly zero. Helluva system.

Crazy system by design.

But slave owners from 200 year ago designed it. And you can't question their wisdom


At least half the "designers" were not slave owners. I'm questioning YOUR wisdom.
 
2020-05-17 10:53:47 PM  

Gubbo: edmo: Ross Perot received ⅕ of the vote when he ran and it counted for exactly zero. Helluva system.

Crazy system by design.

But slave owners from 200 year ago designed it. And you can't question their wisdom

SFSailor: Gubbo: The issue isn't how you make up the EC, the issue is not having 1 person 1 vote

The issue is that the EC is no longer free to vote in a way that protects democracy from itself... it *should* have taken a look at Trump and voted for Ms. Clinton. But it could not, because of laws controlling the electors.

Not saying it's the ideal system, but it should have been a last ditch emergency override to prevent what we have now.

CigaretteSmokingMan: kudayta: The electoral system was ostensibly designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining office. Yet here we are.

No, but that's how it's been sold.

Linux_Yes: the EC gives more weight to rual state voters than city/large state voters. it helped Trumper get in the white house.

OneManArmy: Funny how it did the opposite.

dericwater: Yeah, the ONE time it was meant to stop some lunatic from taking office, it didn't work as intended.

According to the Federalist Papers, what we have now and have had since at least the Civil War is not what the Framers designed. Key Framers including George Washington and John Adams (our first two Presidents) warned against allowing political parties to even exist, let alone come to wield powers including being able to establish explicitly partisan offices in Congress (House / Senate Majority / Minority Leader / Whip / whatever), and giving one of those (Senate Majority Leader) powers beyond a Constitutionally mandated office (President pro tempore of the Senate), which is how Moscow Miatch is able to do what he does.

But back to the Electoral College. What we have now is that political parties hold "primaries" and "caucuses" at the state level to select "delegates" to cast pre-pledged first-round votes for a candidate, resulting in a nominated "ticket" of Presidential and Vice Presidential "running mates," then the "parties" in each state choose a "slate" of Electors that match the Congressional representation of that state, and those Electors are pre-pledged to cast their votes for the "ticket." The candidates campaign directly to the people, and in the states, the names of the candidates are on the general election ballot for the "popular vote" (some states do also name the Electors on the ballot, but the voters can still only vote for the entire "party" "slate"). For all but two states, whichever "party" wins the "popular vote" in the general election gets to send its entire "slate" (ME and NE give two to the "popular vote" winner of their state, and divvy the rest up by whichever "party" wins the "popular vote" of each Congressional District) of Electors pre-pledged to vote for the nominated "ticket" of "running mates," and in many states are forbidden by law from voting otherwise.

That is not even close to what the Framers had in mind or how the Electoral College was supposed to work! None of the words I put in "quotes" in the preceding ¶, nor the concepts those words express, are found anywhere in the Constitution nor any of the Amendments that the original Framers had a hand in (up to and including the 12th, which, contrary to popular belief, did not establish political parties nor even acknowledge them directly in any way [though parties were the underlying cause for that amendment]).

The states were supposed to choose their Electors themselves. It was assumed that they'd do so through state legislative action, or the formation of a state authorized body to choose the electors. But states soon palmed that off onto the voters. That in and of itself wouldn't've been such a bad thing without parties turning it into the above system, though.

The way it should work while still keeping the voters involved: prospective Electors residing in a State are placed in a pool, and divided up by those residing in each District. Voters would be presented with the list of just those Electors residing in their District and cast a vote for whichever Elector they want. Whoever wins the most from each District would go on to represent that District in place of its Congressional Representative. The remaining Electors would have their votes tabulated, and the top two winners would go on to represent the State as a whole in place of its two U.S. Senators. (Alternatively a separate pool of statewide prospective Electors may be on the ballot, with the voters can choose one from that in addition to the one from their District, with the top two winners of that vote going on to the Electoral College.)

The names of the candidates would not be on the ballot. The Electors would make no indication in advance of candidate or party preference. They also cannot hold any public office themselves (this restriction is already explicitly stated in the Constitution but is basically ignored). Thus, there is no point for candidates for Executive Branch leadership to campaign directly to the people. There's no reason for the general populace to even know who they are!

That is how the Electoral College was supposed to prevent a demagogue like Trump. Trump is talented at working crowds. Demagoguery wouldn't work on a small group of well educated and respected Electors with no political ambitions of their own (the point of the prohibition against them holding public office themselves).

It didn't fail on its own. It was sabotaged early on by being turned into rubber stamps for political parties, with the people only getting to choose which party.

edmo: Jacobin: The problem is that the country is filled with self entitled raging dumbasses on both sides of the spectrum

The problem is there are "sides." If there were more parties, you could vote for someone that really represented your views.

I think a lot of people vote not FOR things but AGAINST things. Say a conservative who's against abortion and against gun control, he's going to vote Republican. It's the only choice. What if you're a religious liberal person who is against abortion? If abortion is truly the thing you care about most, you have to bite the bullet and vote for somebody you may not like in any other fashion. Any single issue voter has little choice but to surrender their other desires. Why should you have to do that?

If we had more parties, those issue voters might have more choices which would make things a lot more interesting and I'd wager a lot more would get done. You can't get a consensus with two viewpoints very often but with 5 or 6 parties, maybe you could get some things done. And you could be a truly independent voter.

For third parties to work, the EC has to go and straight vote counting has to become the norm. Otherwise, as a famous man has said, it's "rigged."

I'd rather there be fewer parties ― as in, none. Imagine if the voters didn't have a handy-dandy letter in parentheses or primary color or cute animal silhouette logo to save them the hassle of actually finding out what each candidate (for Senator or Representative [for President / V.P., see above]) believes on each issue.

Washington and Adams were right. Our forebears should've listened when they had the chance (yes, that'd mean none of us would exist, but the people in our place would almost certainly be a lot better off)..
 
2020-05-17 10:54:13 PM  

PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.


Who measures merit in this hypothetical meritocracy?  Those who already meritocrats?  That's an aristocracy.  Or you could put it up to a general vote like we do now, which is an idiocracy.
 
2020-05-17 10:55:20 PM  

Brosephus: The HoR should be at least 600 strong


Expanding the government is always the most important thing to the Liberal. And who's going to pay for all these new fat government jobs? Soros?
 
2020-05-17 11:02:33 PM  

Stile4aly: PreMortem: Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat

The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.

The solution to uninformed or demagogic voting isn't to disenfranchise voters, but to create a system which rewards effective legislators and limits incompetent ones.  I think that upon entering the Senate or House, legislators should have to sit a series of exams designed by a cross section of colleges from around the country.  Want to serve on a science committee?  You have to demonstrate that you have a fundamental understanding of science.  Same for Education, Law, Foreign Affairs, Economics, Taxation, and Budgeting.  If you fail to demonstrate competency, you can't serve on committees.  Maybe there are further restrictions - you can't introduce legislation or vote to uphold a filibuster.  If voters realize their Representatives are incompetent, perhaps they'll be incentivized to elect better candidates.


What, and let those ivory tower eggheads shove their elitist agenda down the throat of Real America?  People who vote for Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz do it because they're unqualified, because they're good ol' boys who they identify with on a personal level.  Also in principle morons deserve representation too.
 
2020-05-17 11:04:04 PM  

Stile4aly: PreMortem: Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat

The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.

The solution to uninformed or demagogic voting isn't to disenfranchise voters, but to create a system which rewards effective legislators and limits incompetent ones.  I think that upon entering the Senate or House, legislators should have to sit a series of exams designed by a cross section of colleges from around the country.  Want to serve on a science committee?  You have to demonstrate that you have a fundamental understanding of science.  Same for Education, Law, Foreign Affairs, Economics, Taxation, and Budgeting.  If you fail to demonstrate competency, you can't serve on committees.  Maybe there are further restrictions - you can't introduce legislation or vote to uphold a filibuster.  If voters realize their Representatives are incompetent, perhaps they'll be incentivized to elect better candidates.


Or we could fight Duverger's Law by getting state level constitutional amendments passed for ranked choice voting with proportional allocation thus killing the two party system.
 
2020-05-17 11:04:38 PM  

PreMortem: Gubbo: PreMortem: I'd argue democracy, i.e. popular vote, is heavily flawed. The masses are asses, as Hamilton noted. Something along the lines of a meritocracy would suit me better than the system we have now.

Interesting.....

No wait that was the wrong word.

Let me try again

Bullshiat

The electoral college is total bullsiat, as tfa tries to explain, albeit at an eight grade reading level. The popular vote gets you demagogues as the Federalist papers explain with prophetic accuracy. What's your solution? Bullshiat is not a valid option.


How exactly does our current system prevent the election of demagogues? All it does is ensure that conservatives will always have an advantage in every single presidential election until the end of time.
 
2020-05-17 11:05:03 PM  

FnkyTwn: Brosephus: The HoR should be at least 600 strong

Expanding the government is always the most important thing to the Liberal. And who's going to pay for all these new fat government jobs? Soros?


That would be funny if I were a liberal. I'm not and you're not funny. I'd tell you who would pay for it but the Mods might frown upon my shenanigans. It is funny though how some lame brains try to label people and think that's some valid argument. In 10 years, I'd figure people would have the synaptic ability to format a coherent argument. I guess there's an exception to every rule though.
 
2020-05-17 11:05:12 PM  

FnkyTwn: Brosephus: The HoR should be at least 600 strong

Expanding the government is always the most important thing to the Liberal. And who's going to pay for all these new fat government jobs? Soros?


You really believe, in the real-life world where we just gave $3T to corporations because of a virus, that we can't pay for an additional 150 or so congress critters? The cost to pay for representatives, their staff, the office of the presidency and the staff there, as well as the judicial branch, is minuscule compared to the size of the budget.
 
2020-05-17 11:09:42 PM  

Target Builder: Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.

The EC doesn't result in candidates being able to win POTUS while losing the popular vote on account of the extra weight given to the smaller population states.

It returns results like 2016 because the way electors are allocated it rewards narrow wins in large population states over anything else.

Trump owes his win while losing the popular vote to narrow wins in PA and FL, two of the most populated states in the Union.

Rerun the results with more reps and the outcome is the same no matter how many you add.


The numbers themselves wouldn't change for 2016. I believe that having more representatives running would increase voter participation above where it currently sits. I think the #1 problem is we have around 40-50 percent of the population that doesn't vote.
 
2020-05-17 11:23:42 PM  

Brosephus: Target Builder: Brosephus: The number of seats in the House needs to be increased to fix the EC.  We haven't added a seat in almost a century, but our population has blown up. The HoR should be at least 600 strong so the seats and EC votes could be more proportionally divided between the states. This would give the more populous states more votes that their population should have over states like Wyoming and South Dakota.

The EC doesn't result in candidates being able to win POTUS while losing the popular vote on account of the extra weight given to the smaller population states.

It returns results like 2016 because the way electors are allocated it rewards narrow wins in large population states over anything else.

Trump owes his win while losing the popular vote to narrow wins in PA and FL, two of the most populated states in the Union.

Rerun the results with more reps and the outcome is the same no matter how many you add.

The numbers themselves wouldn't change for 2016. I believe that having more representatives running would increase voter participation above where it currently sits. I think the #1 problem is we have around 40-50 percent of the population that doesn't vote.


And that's why we should move elections to Saturdays, allow for now reason absentee ballots and implement ranked choice voting. The last one at least lets people vote For a preferred candidate while acknowledging acceptable alternatives. I think those changes would help with turnout immensely. Which means none of the states formerly under Voters Rights Act supervision would ever allow them to be implemented.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.