Quote :

"it takes massive over-representation away from Cali Dems, but gives it to Cali Repubs, who have never had ANY representation whatsoever."

1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988. So in 6 of the last 13, California Republicans did ok.

Pete Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger also did ok, and quite recently.

4/2/2019 4:16:26 PM

pretty sure they have a handful of representatives in congress too

4/2/2019 4:28:58 PM

Quote :

"Actually, that's wrong. Tired yet?"

AKshUaLLy!!

Quote :

"Maine and Nebraska have adapted a different approach. Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote. "

4/2/2019 4:41:46 PM

^^^ If you've got to go back 50 years to balance out the most recent 30, that's not a good sign for your argument, lol. That also ignores the population shifts that have occurred in the last 50 years, which are both the foundation for the Electoral College and also the reason that California will remain red for the foreseeable future.

^^ And California has 2 reliably Dem senators. Both have next-to-nothing to do with representation in a Presidential election.

4/2/2019 4:46:35 PM

^^he said that in like the next sentence? And that doesn't describe what you said, dividing electoral vote proportional to popular vote?

Quote :

" If you want the US to move to a direct democracy, that's a fine argument to make, "

I want the US to move to direct democracy for presidential elections. I thought that was the whole point of this thread, didn't know I needed to explain that.

Quote :

"^ You can't just gloss over the fact that less populated states (that I poorly shorthanded as "rural," which is far more applicable today than it was then) refused to sign on to a system which would run roughshod over them."

You don't think less populated states are mostly run over NOW? Their votes technically mean a little more, but after primaries, how much do candidates focus on small states?? Direct democracy would mean more focus campaigning in cities but would also mean candidates need to expand beyond swing states. Candidates would have to hit a more diverse cross section of the country instead of spending all their time in Florida and Ohio.

4/2/2019 5:01:57 PM

Considering that Republicans currently can't hope to win a national election without the support of less populated states, no, I don't think they are being run completely over. Is anyone saying "gee, I wonder what Montana thinks about this?" Of course not.

The notion that candidates would appeal to a more diverse cross section of the country with a direct vote is preposterous. Why the hell would anyone give two shits about the 40 people in Montana and Nebraska? The appeal will be made more and more to urban areas exclusively, with zero concern for rural areas because they don't have as many voters. Candidates will move from NYC to Philly to Chicago to LA to SF, and that's it. They might throw in a few trips to Miami and Houston just for shits.

Much of this is due to the entrenchment of the 2-party system, but a move to direct election of the president would make that candidates for that office focus solely on populated areas.

Also, being a direct democracy for the leader of a republic is a bit dumb. Like, mustang parts in a camaro dumb.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 5:24:56 PM

50 years ago isnt a long time ago for something that only happens every 4 years

4/2/2019 5:36:12 PM

Trump would still win if you removed
Nebraska
Wyoming
N Dakota
S Dakota
Montana
Alaska
Idaho
Wv


NY and LA are basically ignored in terms of chasing the votes, seems like having candidates care about our economic and population centers would be a good thing?

Also there were 120 million votes cast last election. The STATES of CA, NY, ill, and PA are only 25% of that. If you assume those 5 cities are their states entire voting population, you stili have 75% of the country to sell to.

4/2/2019 5:49:10 PM

When it's 7 of the last 7 and you've got to go back that far to get 6 to make it look even, with two of those being a celebrity from the state... yeah...

^ 2016 was an aberration. No one reasonably thought he could pull off MI, PA, and WI. The point stands.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 5:49:44 PM

Quote :

"No one reasonably thought he could pull off MI, PA, and WI. "

Ah I see now. This whole argument was an elaborate April Fool's joke. Well sir, you got me!

4/2/2019 6:04:47 PM

Quote :

"If you've got to go back 50 years to balance out the most recent 30, that's not a good sign for your argument, lol."

What do you think my argument was, exactly? That California is a hotly-contested purple state? No.

You said: "Cali Repubs have never had ANY representation whatsoever."

My argument was that your sentence was stupid and wrong.

Speaking of stupid and wrong:

Quote :

"Also, being a direct democracy for the leader of a republic is a bit dumb."

In a direct democracy, people vote on policy issues directly. In a republic, people elect leaders to decide on policy issues. There is nothing in the definition of republic that mandates having an intermediate tier of electors. There is nothing about abolishing the electoral college that would lead to direct democracy. This entire line of argument is complete, 100%, irredeemable garbage.

[Edited on April 3, 2019 at 7:37 AM. Reason : ]

4/3/2019 7:37:34 AM

as you quibble over obvious hyperbole, we're still stuck with California Republicans having no representation in Presidential elections, with California being able to actually give it to them, while it complains about not having proper representation in Presidential elections...

I would have more respect for the arguments if they just said what they really meant: "We think getting rid of the EC would make it more likely that Democrats would get elected." That would be preferable to hiding behind BS arguments like "it's undemocratic" and "we're not fairly represented while we deny that representation to others."

4/3/2019 11:42:00 AM

how are you still struggling with concept of states switching at the same time

4/3/2019 11:52:06 AM

His goal is solving fairness for Republicans in California.

Burro's goal is not solving fairness in our national presidential election system. He's just in his own world... I guess it's the classical "Strawman Argument".

4/3/2019 12:03:54 PM

I love how Burro is trying to call out others for their partisanship while not acknowledging his own being demonstrated by him focusing on California (and the "60+ head start" they provide).

4/3/2019 12:12:11 PM

Quote :

"I would have more respect for the arguments if they just said what they really meant: "We think California splitting EC votes would make it more likely that Republicans would get elected." That would be preferable to hiding behind BS arguments like "California Republicans having no representation""

4/3/2019 12:16:43 PM

appeal to motive

4/3/2019 12:24:45 PM

Terms that aaronburro does not know the meaning of:

1) Never
2) Direct Democracy
3) Republic

4/3/2019 12:43:26 PM

His "aberration" post was pretty stupid too, on multiple fronts. It's rare that I feel like an asshole for getting drawn into an argument here, but this counts.

4/3/2019 1:52:00 PM

^ you must have missed him saying

Quote :

"the point stands"

sooooo......

4/3/2019 3:14:55 PM

Ah yes guess I didn't consider that the point stands. Ah well, nevertheless....

4/3/2019 7:51:28 PM

Some light reading for burro: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/us/usa-democracy.html#click=https://t.co/annKxW4GSL

4/7/2019 1:41:29 PM

Pro: The SC swiftly rejects a BS lawsuit from Texas because, even if the alleged claims were true, Texas isn't harmed by voting irregularities in other states
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shuts-door-on-trump-election-prospects

12/11/2020 11:45:13 PM

This will be the first time in a century that folks actually give a shit when the Electoral College actually holds a vote. Hopefully once that is done we can move past this horseshit, but I'm sure some will not concede or accept reality.

12/12/2020 11:07:27 AM

There’s a 0% chance that the unsubstantiated claims of a rigged election go away anytime soon.

12/12/2020 11:40:03 AM

One thing that will come out of this is we will have to concede to voter ID laws and a system where every vote has an ID, face, and signature to go along with it. Its the only way they could restore faith in the system. Democrats will just have to be sure to fight to make sure underserved communities get access to IDs.

12/12/2020 12:34:28 PM

I voted by absentee ballot, and for the information I had to provide just to granted a ballot in the mail, I have to say it would be a lot of work to perpetuate fraud on a massive scale.

12/12/2020 1:11:26 PM

^Agreed as this was the first time my wife and I voted absentee before. I like to go to the polls on election day, but it was not worth it this year to me. There was a sufficient amount of paperwork involved in requesting the ballot, signing the ballots, having a witness, etc. I might do it again if I can't make it to the poll on election day in the future and it was nice having time to look up all of the down ballot candidates but the extra work was a bit of a hassle.

12/12/2020 8:48:23 PM

I liked being able to have the full ballot and being able to research local races and other issues without feeling the time pressure of being in the voting booth. They also have a tracking system for your ballot so you know whether it was received and tabulated.

12/12/2020 11:22:26 PM

^Yea I further went to the Board of Elections and dropped our ballots off in person so I didn't have to worry about it getting lost in the mail. Super smooth process.

^^^^Of the four "contested" tests three have some requirements to provide ID and two of those require a photo ID. So if Republicans lose again will we need a blood sample as well? Will we need to remove any absentee voting to make those people happy? Just hate the constant moving of the goalposts on this. If anything we should be moving to make voting easier for people not more restrictive.

If you really want to "restore confidence in the electoral process" we should just remove the Electoral College and this shit would have been over a month ago.

[Edited on December 12, 2020 at 11:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2020 11:51:42 PM

Quote :

" Its the only way they could restore faith in the system. "

But there’s no actual reason for a lack of faith in the system. The only reason for it is that their candidate lost and they assume if their candidate loses, it must be rigged. There’s no actual fraud that has caused a lack of confidence in the system.

12/13/2020 7:38:27 AM

You don’t believe that if we had strict voter ID across the system all these completely sane people would just accept the results and move on?

12/13/2020 9:26:48 AM

^Yep they would just move the goalposts again. It would be the voting machines fault, Chinese interference, illegals voting or allowing any mail-in or absentee voting, etc. They are always going to find some scapegoat for an election result not favoring their candidate. Even in NC where Trump won and Republicans overall made gains they still don't understand how Cooper won and think it was fraud. Seems pretty obvious to me that like the President Dan Forest wanted to pretend their was no pandemic, but older people who vote more frequently and regularly (and are dropping like flies to Covid) crossed over to vote for Cooper due to his handling of the virus. Its not a conspiracy or voter fraud, its just people voting against an individual candidate. Not everybody votes straight ticket, thank God.

12/13/2020 10:03:05 AM

And giving into their demands of Voter ID laws and stricter election laws (which will ultimately suppress minority votes, of course) is a tacit acceptance of their election fraud claims and/or lack of election security. The entire thing is a straw man. “Count all legal votes!” is absurd because nobody is arguing against that. The problem is, there’s no evidence of any significant level of voter fraud or illegal voting or tampering of any kind.

12/13/2020 11:01:57 AM

Every state is different. Maybe your state has the mail in ballot system down pat but some states like the one I live in just mail out ballots to everyone unsolicited and all you have to do is sign the name that was on the ballot and turn it back in. Its a complete joke.

Quote :

"But there’s no actual reason for a lack of faith in the system. The only reason for it is that their candidate lost and they assume if their candidate loses, it must be rigged. There’s no actual fraud that has caused a lack of confidence in the system."

The second sentence is a lie because they have been complaining about voter fraud for years. In fact, after the 2016 election (the one they swept) they claimed there was widespread fraud and Trump even said the election he won was rigged so you simply cannot write claims of fraud off as an excuse for losing. Its especially hilarious because while they were claiming fraud, democrats were saying Russia stole the election and the media was talking about how our elections were too vulnerable to foreign interference. Now, all of a sudden, our elections are ironclad. Theres a lot of projecting going on.

Also, democrats seem to say we shouldn't worry about fraud unless theres evidence that theres enough of it to flip the election but ANY fraud is enough to reduce confidence in the system. I'm not saying throw out the election results but finding ways to reduce fraud going forward is the obvious middle ground between that and the opposite extreme ("ignore all fraud because its insignificant").

[Edited on December 14, 2020 at 12:37 AM. Reason : k]

12/14/2020 12:35:46 AM

Quote :

"The second sentence is a lie because they have been complaining about voter fraud for years."

That doesn't make it a lie (or even inaccurate): It looks to me like it's simply years of Republican efforts to plow the field for just such an occasion.

12/14/2020 1:44:31 AM

Quote :

" years. In fact, after the 2016 election (the one they swept) they claimed there was widespread fraud and Trump even said the election he won was rigged so you simply cannot write claims of fraud off as an excuse for losing. "

It was pretty clearly an excuse for losing the popular vote. If you wanna take it a step further, claiming the votes were cast by illegal immigrants and non-citizens also serves to promote his own policy of increased border security and other policies against illegal immigration (ie, fear mongering that was discussed earlier).

And like ^ said...claiming it over and over doesn’t make it any more true.

12/14/2020 8:58:00 AM

Quote :

"it was nice having time to look up all of the down ballot candidates but the extra work was a bit of a hassle."

Quote :

"I liked being able to have the full ballot and being able to research local races and other issues without feeling the time pressure of being in the voting booth."

I'm not sure if every county does this, but the Wake County Board of Elections website provides a downloadable PDF of every registered voter's sample ballots that can be viewed prior to any election.

[Edited on December 14, 2020 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2020 10:49:22 AM

^ I think it’s usually pretty easy to find your sample ballot online (if you actually look for it). But I’m sure there are lots of people unaware of that, or just lazy and don’t do it. Having the ballot in-hand definitely encourages more research and more opportunity to be informed about down ballot stuff.

12/14/2020 11:29:23 AM

I agree. It's better than even a sample ballot. Am I going to memorize the sample ballot and my choices, or make a cheat sheet to take in to the polling place with me?

12/14/2020 12:19:21 PM

Yeah I’ve done the cheat sheet thing before. But do prefer mail-in.

12/14/2020 1:56:08 PM

Yea previously I typed a cheat sheet into my phone.

But yea it was nice and leisurely voting while I could reference stances and actions online and even discussed some with the wife before we each decided on who to vote for. So I might continue it into the future.

12/14/2020 4:33:54 PM

Quote :

"Rand Paul just told Fox that if the electoral college is abolished then conservatives will “never win a presidential election again.”"

1/6/2021 9:23:53 PM

^well they've only won the popular vote once in the last 8 elections

[Edited on January 6, 2021 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2021 9:28:52 PM

Ya I was gonna do the "oh my God he admit it" gif but I was too lazy

1/6/2021 9:35:06 PM

Pro: We get to watch each of these old farts talk shit about Trump during their objection speeches.

[Edited on January 7, 2021 at 12:01 AM. Reason : why is this shit so interesting now???]

1/7/2021 12:00:44 AM

Quote :

"Rand Paul just told Fox that if the electoral college is abolished then conservatives will “never win a presidential election again.”"

Good. Fuck every last one of you

1/7/2021 12:43:36 AM

I'm for proportional representation, but not fully abolishing the electoral college. The reason being is that it gives marginalized groups that only exist in 1 state additional political power beyond their state and local representation, while eliminating the concept of red states and blue states.

A good example is this:
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-flagstaff-arizona-voting-rights-fa452fbd546fa00535679d78ac40b890

[Edited on January 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM. Reason : ]

1/7/2021 1:43:05 AM

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/10/1116688726/most-americans-support-using-the-popular-vote-to-decide-u-s-presidents-data-show

8/11/2022 1:58:02 PM

the larger the federal government gets, the more logical sense it makes to have the president be elected by a popular vote as it so increasingly affects each person's life directly. because with that, we transition more from the "the federal unites the states" to "the states are within the federal" formation. it is a cycle, more federal involvement, the more we think the federal government has a duty to be involved, more involvement, more expectation of responsibility, and so on. I don't think that is the best form, but it is a natural progression

Ideally I'd like there to be less federal responsibility but it is complicated, given the cards our nation was dealt, it was with that progression that we would be able to even enforce some of the rights and economic realities we take for granted today.

it would be foolish to assume that you simply effect a system, no matter how well designed, on a population, because the system will form upon the base of the existing culture, dynamics, and debate of the nation.

I don't see how we could undo the federal expansion, so perhaps further going into this via a popular vote might be the right way to just accept the 'kyklos'.
but maybe you just gotta not think about how it works and do what you believe to help realize what is meant to be. who knows

^^moron has a very good point too, I also have heard of that phenomenon before

also I disagree with any reasoning regarding "unfair/fair" to democrats and republicans. the constitution is blind to whatever party you're in, that is simply how the population dynamics are right now and that changes over time, you can't change policies which have lasted changes in party dynamics over hundreds of years due to the dynamics right now.
arguments should be made on the basis of principle, and there are definitely fair arguments for the popular vote which are.

[Edited on March 2, 2023 at 5:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2023 5:06:36 PM