Three Californias?

[Vin]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think making sure everyone's votes are worth something and weighted equally is a bigger deal than some made-up fear that smaller states will somehow decide to rebel if they don't get to keep their thumbs on the scale of democracy. Those states will still get their Senate representation, where the two people who represent 500,000 people from Wyoming get as much say as the two people who represent 40,000,000 Californians.

Your rebellion argument may be convincing if you could actually show me some evidence that smaller states feel really resentful of the idea of a popular vote for President. It's not like candidates go to South Dakota now anyway.

 

And having that view is perfectly rational and completely justified . No one's gonna stop you from that , your priorities and values cause you to rate that highly and that's great .I just happen to be fine with hybrid system because my priorities,values and character are different  . Welcome to individualism ! (Sorry , couldn't resist the dig )

 

Evidence that smaller red states hate California ? Do you even live here mate  

They're resentful of the consequence of a popular vote which is basically that their state doesn't mean shit . Now you could tell them tough luck and say that's the end of it but I don't think that would be the end of it .that's the crux of this discussion . It's subjective .I can't prove there absolutely will be secession or rebellion and you can't prove there won't be . 

Hence why I think caution is best with the issue while you feel fine to risk it . Which I state again and again is a normal disagreement to have

 

 

 

[Vin]

20 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Honestly I think Scot's suggestion is fine, I just wanted to see why Vin thought the current system is better than popular vote.

And I told you why but you  just went "meh , I disagree " which I said was fine since we're different people but at this point I have to assume that you're arguing just for the sake of argument . 

[DanteGabriel]

12 minutes ago, Vin said:

Evidence that smaller red states hate California ? Do you even live here mate  

They're resentful of the consequence of a popular vote which is basically that their state doesn't mean shit .

I know people resent California, but I assumed it was for the nice weather, robust economy, easy access to Mexican food, cultural cachet, and high cost of living in the cities, not because they get too many electoral votes for President. Maybe people would be resentful that those 54 votes always go to a Democrat, but changing to a popular vote would actually dilute some of that power.

Still, okay, smaller states would resent California getting so much attention from candidates. Don't they already resent getting ignored in favor of Ohio and Florida?

4 minutes ago, Vin said:

And I told you why but you  just went "meh , I disagree " which I said was fine since we're different people but at this point I have to assume that you're arguing just for the sake of argument . 

I asked for some support to the notion that states would rebel over a popular vote system where everyone's votes actually matter. You haven't supported it except to say vague things about violence after the last election.

Lastly, saying "meh, I disagree" to other people's arguments and offering no counter evidence is kind of your bag. Agree to disagree!

[Seli]

2 hours ago, Vin said:

Because it threatens the union . We know that a popular vote would mean domination by New York, California and Texas and fuck all for the other smaller states . I know that the threat of civil war and secession is considered an improbability now but I think it's a very dangerous concept to toy with for the US . It can probably work in other countries that don't have a history of potent statehood rule....

That is not how a popular vote works, because in that system every single vote actually is important.

California, Texas, New York are not enough to dominate US voting, even if you magically would get everyone in those states to vote in unison. You'd need at least 9 states to achieve that. See the maps here: https://www.6sqft.com/50-of-americans-live-in-the-countrys-144-largest-counties/

[lokisnow]

57 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It is fair to argue that small and medium sized states would get completely ignored in favor of a handful of states and cities. Honestly there should be a healthy compromise in which a candidate must win both the popular vote and the Electoral College to win the presidency.

Why is it fair to argue that large states should be ruled by distant small states? 

What makes small states elite or deserving of the right to rule over large states? their rural aristocracy?

We rebelled against the distant rule of rural aristocracy in the 1770s, I don’t see why we should suffer under domestic distant rule of rural aristocrats.

 

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Why should large states be ruled by distant small states? 

What makes small states elite or deserving of the right to rule over large states, their rural aristocracy?

We rebelled against the distant rule of rural aristocracy in the 1770s, I don’t see why we should suffer under domestic distant rule of rural aristocrats.

 

Especially since they're hoovering up our tax dollars and shitting on us as "not real Americans" all the while.

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The EC “adjustment” of voteing between urban and rural is skewed well beyond the intentions of the founders at this point.  Up until 1900 the size of the House of Representatives (HOR) was increased every 10 years to keep the level of represtation relatively stable.  In 1900 the number of Representatives was locked at 438.  So we’ve spent the last century and a bit shuffling the number of Representatives between areas as populations shift.

The lock on the number of Representatives means that the EC becomes more and more skewed in favor of the rural areas with time.  An easy stopgap (that doesn’t require a Constitutional Amendment) to reduce the skewing towards the rural areas in the EC is to lift the cap on the number of Representatives in the HOR the EC will increase in size and the vast majority of Representatives and Electors will go to urban areas.

 

Ive brought this up before and I believe dmc or fez protested that we utterly must live for all time with 438 representatives because that is how many desks fit in the chamber for the House of Representatives.

no matter how egregious the inequality and misrepresentation becomes we have to live with it forever.

because antique desks are more important than people.

especially more important than people of color, who are disproportionately hurt by the DC desk fetishizers.

thats DC for ya, got their priorities straight, desk fetishes are the new dog whistle.

 

(they belong in a museum!)

[Vin]

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I know people resent California, but I assumed it was for the nice weather, robust economy, easy access to Mexican food, cultural cachet, and high cost of living in the cities, not because they get too many electoral votes for President. Maybe people would be resentful that those 54 votes always go to a Democrat, but changing to a popular vote would actually dilute some of that power.

Still, okay, smaller states would resent California getting so much attention from candidates. Don't they already resent getting ignored in favor of Ohio and Florida?

I asked for some support to the notion that states would rebel over a popular vote system where everyone's votes actually matter. You haven't supported it except to say vague things about violence after the last election.

Lastly, saying "meh, I disagree" to other people's arguments and offering no counter evidence is kind of your bag. Agree to disagree!

I made valid points that you chose to ignore . So no , I won't engage with you in this vain anymore.

13 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

That is not how a popular vote works, because in that system every single vote actually is important.

California, Texas, New York are not enough to dominate US voting, even if you magically would get everyone in those states to vote in unison. You'd need at least 9 states to achieve that. See the maps here: https://www.6sqft.com/50-of-americans-live-in-the-countrys-144-largest-counties/

How is this evidence of anything ? 

[Vin]

10 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Why is it fair to argue that large states should be ruled by distant small states? 

What makes small states elite or deserving of the right to rule over large states? their rural aristocracy?

We rebelled against the distant rule of rural aristocracy in the 1770s, I don’t see why we should suffer under domestic distant rule of rural aristocrats.

 

call/ write your representative . Start a petition . Go for it .

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, Vin said:

I made valid points that you chose to ignore . So no , I won't engage with you in this vain anymore.

You literally have nothing beyond your own personal belief that small states would resent a change enough to rebel.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Ive brought this up before and I believe dmc or fez protested that we utterly must live for all time with 438 representatives because that is how many desks fit in the chamber for the House of Representatives.

no matter how egregious the inequality and misrepresentation becomes we have to live with it forever.

because antique desks are more important than people.

especially more important than people of color, who are disproportionately hurt by the DC desk fetishizers.

thats DC for ya, got their priorities straight, desk fetishes are the new dog whistle.

 

(they belong in a museum!)

Exactly.  Turn the HOR on Capital Hill into a museum and expand the body.  I’ve argued for that for decades.

[Vin]

21 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You literally have nothing beyond your own personal belief that small states would resent a change enough to rebel.

And you have nothing beyond thinking the EC is unfair and personal belief that they won't . 

At any rate you've been quite disingenuous in this (you already admitted that you agree with me about scot's suggestion) and I think you're simply trying to antagonize me so I don't see the point in continuing. 

Have a good day

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Vin said:

And you have nothing beyond thinking the EC is unfair and personal belief that they won't . 

At any rate you've been quite disingenuous in this (you already admitted that you agree with me about scot's suggestion) and I think you're simply trying to antagonize me so I don't see the point in continuing. 

Have a good day

Reasons Dante thinks we should move from the Electoral College to popular vote:

1. Voters of non-dominant parties don't count: Republicans in CA, Democrats in KY

2. Voters in high population states have votes that count for a fraction of those in low pop states

3. Candidates ignore all but a handful of contested states

 

Reasons Vin thinks we should keep the Electoral College:

1. It might make low-population states mad enough to rebel

 

My reasons are actually based on real things that happen: unequal representation, wasted votes, and apathy from knowing your state is already decided unless you're in a swing state. All you've got is unsupported hand-wringing about rebellion.

You can stop responding at any time (like you said you would two posts ago) but I notice you don't have a rebuttal for any of this besides your own personal feelings.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Why is it fair to argue that large states should be ruled by distant small states? 

What makes small states elite or deserving of the right to rule over large states? their rural aristocracy?

We rebelled against the distant rule of rural aristocracy in the 1770s, I don’t see why we should suffer under domestic distant rule of rural aristocrats.

 

You can literally flip that around and say why should rural voters be ruled by a handful of large cities a thousand miles away from them? There has some compromise and balance. My proposal achieves that.

Also, if you’re going to complain about the composition of legislatures, you’re looking at the wrong chamber. The Senate needs to be reorganized way before you start looking at the House. Give each state one senator and allot the other 50 the same way you do in House every 10 years after the census. Per a lazy Google search, California’s population is larger than the smallest 22 states combined. That’s where the injustice is.

[lokisnow]

13 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

Reasons Vin thinks we should keep the Electoral College:

1. It might make low-population states mad enough to rebel

 

This is incorrect, Vin’s argument is actually “if small states have to accept equality, they will be mad enough to rebel.”

some things never change, such as the reason to rebel.

[lokisnow]

13 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

You can literally flip that around and say why should rural voters be ruled by a handful of large cities a thousand miles away from them? There has some compromise and balance. My proposal achieves that.

Also, if you’re going to complain about the composition of legislatures, you’re looking at the wrong chamber. The Senate needs to be reorganized way before you start looking at the House. Give each state one senator and allot the other 50 the same way you do in House every 10 years after the census. Per a lazy Google search, California’s population is larger than the smallest 22 states combined. That’s where the injustice is.

It actually isn’t.  Rule by rural elites means that the vote of a rural resident is weighted to have more value than the vote of an urban resident. Rule by urban population means that all votes have equal value both urban and rural votes are equal with equal weight.

To say that unequal vote weighting and equal vote weighting are inverse of each other is simply factually wrong.

The inverse of an unequal vote weighting is the unequal vote weighting reverses.

for example, the inverse of the rural belief that an urban vote should be worth 3/5 the value of a rural vote is: an urban belief that a rural vote should be worth 3/5 the value of an urban vote. 

And it is important to point out that this urban belief doesn’t exist, only rural voters are demanding their votes be worth more, no urban voters are demanding their votes be worth more, they are only demanding equality.

for some reason rural voters believe that they should have veto power over urban concerns and that anything less than this level of control means they are being treated unfairly. Which is quite insane. 

If  the electoral college achieved compromise and balance it would have been used at least one more time somewhere in the world. But it has been utterly rejected as garbage psychotic nonsense by every government formed since the 1780s, including in fifty United States.

the composition of the senate is the only aspect of the constitution that cannot be changed by constitutional amendment. The composition of the senate can only be altered by unanimous consent of all fifty states.

[Seli]

1 hour ago, Vin said:

...

How is this evidence of anything ? 

It is data. I do assume you understand how popular vote would work? One still would need 50% of the votes to actually get a majority (assuming 2 viable candidates).

Which seems an improvement over the electoral college every day of the year. Since there you could get away with 23.1% of the vote dominating an election completely, in a slightly less magical universe than we'd need for the most populated states to dominate. See https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

 

[Vin]

1 minute ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

It is data. I do assume you understand how popular vote would work? One still would need 50% of the votes to actually get a majority (assuming 2 viable candidates).

Which seems an improvement over the electoral college every day of the year. Since there you could get away with 23.1% of the vote dominating an election completely, in a slightly less magical universe than we'd need for the most populated states to dominate. See https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

 

You're using extremes as the measure . 

There's never been an EC victory that wasn't also relatively close in the popular vote . This idea that the presidency is stolen by the system is exaggerated I think .

[The guy from the Vale]

Relatively close, maybe. But why on earth would the popular vote be worse than the current arcane system in your country? Why stick to a system that has basically been obsolete for a century (since the invention of mass media like the radio)?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@lokisnow

Sigh…If you only rely on the popular vote, rural voters, and therefore the issues that are near and dear to them, will get completely ignored. What you are arguing for will not make everyone’s vote equal, it will just shift the balance of power from rural to urban voters, and in turn depress rural turnout. That’s why my solution is better. It maximizes the value of everyone’s vote, because it requires candidates to appeal to everyone, and will do the most to increase turnout, which should be the ultimate goal.

Also, you’re wrong about the Senate. The Seventeenth Amendment altered Clause One of Section Three of Article One, thus making senate appointments subject to a popular vote. That’s the same part of the Constitution that address the number of senators each state gets. Another Constitutional Amendment could do the same regarding the allocation of senators among states, though obviously that will never happen since small states won’t shoot themselves in the foot for the greater good of the country.