>Electoral College

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 08:14:03 PM

Where a candidate can win 40% of the popular vote, but less than 3% of the Electoral vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

Murica #1!!!

(highest incarcerated persons per capita, highest military spending, highest wealth inequality out of western nations)

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 08:15:09 PM

So yeah, this will just be another one of Comms Officer's "Complain about the United States" threads.

Turkey · April 28, 2015, 08:40:53 PM

The electoral college has only differed four times, and in your example 49/50 states wanted Reagan. The electoral college works.

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 08:48:34 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 08:40:53 PM

The electoral college has only differed four times, and in your example 49/50 states wanted Reagan. The electoral college works.

Quote

Where a candidate can win 40% of the popular vote, but less than 3% of the Electoral vote.

Differed only 4 times? Every election after 1984 has had the Electoral College percent differ from the Popular Vote percentage significantly except for the 2004 one.

Then there's of course the whole case of why the fuck the Electoral College existed in the first place. Well, I get the idea of it (the idea of it is sound, I'll admit that), but it's clearly very flawed.

Turkey · April 28, 2015, 09:07:47 PM

Quote

Where a candidate can win 40% of the popular vote, but less than 3% of the Electoral vote.

Look at the map of the popular vote for that election and tell me Reagan didn't deserve the win.

Quote

Differed only 4 times? Every election after 1984 has had the Electoral College percent differ from the Popular Vote percentage significantly except for the 2004 one.

1988: electoral and popular votes agree
1992: electoral and popular votes agree
1996: electoral and popular votes agree
2000: electoral and popular votes disagree slightly
2004: electoral and popular votes agree
2008: electoral and popular votes agree
2012: electoral and popular votes agree

America is a democratic republic, meaning we don't elect directly from the popular vote because it tends to disenfranchise minority parties in large states.

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 09:13:28 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 09:07:47 PM

Quote
Where a candidate can win 40% of the popular vote, but less than 3% of the Electoral vote.

Look at the map of the popular vote for that election and tell me Reagan didn't deserve the win.
Quote
Differed only 4 times? Every election after 1984 has had the Electoral College percent differ from the Popular Vote percentage significantly except for the 2004 one.

1988: electoral and popular votes agree
1992: electoral and popular votes agree
1996: electoral and popular votes agree
2000: electoral and popular votes disagree slightly
2004: electoral and popular votes agree
2008: electoral and popular votes agree
2012: electoral and popular votes agree

America is a democratic republic, meaning we don't elect directly from the popular vote because it tends to disenfranchise minority parties in large states.

Not saying that Reagan didn't deserve the win (well, he was a fucking asshole, but that's irrelevant), I'm just saying that the Electoral College has weird scenarios where the percentage of Popular Vote and percentage of Electoral Vote differ. Like... 45% of popular vote and 30% of Electoral vote or somethng like that.

And yeah, I said later that I know why the Electoral College was implemented. Which is because it forces candidates to try to appeal to all states rather than just going for the 3 or so most populous ones. My point is that the fact that what happened in the 2000 election for example should be regarded as completely unacceptable, since you have a candidate who for all intents and purposes lost the election end up taking office.

Turkey · April 28, 2015, 09:19:46 PM

I'm not sure how you can say Reagan deserved the win but Bush didn't. The margins in 2000 were much smaller.

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 09:22:38 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 09:19:46 PM

I'm not sure how you can say Reagan deserved the win but Bush didn't. The margins in 2000 were much smaller.

Because Reagan actually won the popular vote in 1984, and Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Is that not a good enough reason, or should we just be saying that the popular vote should mean absolutely nothing now...

Al Gore won the election, but the Electoral College stole it from him. Does that not underline any problems with the Electoral College?

Verbatim · April 28, 2015, 09:44:28 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 08:40:53 PM

The electoral college has only differed four times, and in your example 49/50 states wanted Reagan. The electoral college works.

You can't cite examples where it didn't work, and then say it works. Just saying.

Verbatim · April 28, 2015, 09:46:01 PM

I am also of the opinion that the electoral college should be burned to the ground, and we should all round up to piss on its ashes.

Turkey · April 28, 2015, 10:02:14 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2015, 09:44:28 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 08:40:53 PM
The electoral college has only differed four times, and in your example 49/50 states wanted Reagan. The electoral college works.
You can't cite examples where it didn't work, and then say it works. Just saying.

I didn't say it didn't work in those examples. If the electoral college was designed to always reflect the popular vote, it would be unnecessary and redundant. In the cases where it doesn't agree with the popular vote, it's because it's serving its purpose of adjusting the weight of certain states. In fact, I'd say the only time the electoral college actually had a purpose is when it disagrees with the popular vote.

Comms, for the presidential election the popular vote is not what matters. Typically electoral voters align with how their state is voting, which is the purpose of the general election. The election wasn't stolen from Gore because he lost the electoral vote.

Nick McIntyre · April 28, 2015, 10:08:08 PM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 28, 2015, 09:22:38 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 09:19:46 PM
I'm not sure how you can say Reagan deserved the win but Bush didn't. The margins in 2000 were much smaller.
Because Reagan actually won the popular vote in 1984, and Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Is that not a good enough reason, or should we just be saying that the popular vote should mean absolutely nothing now...

Al Gore won the election, but the Electoral College stole it from him. Does that not underline any problems with the Electoral College?

The Electoral College didn't really steal it from him, the Supreme Court anointed Bush Jr.

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 10:10:25 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 10:02:14 PM

Comms, for the presidential election the popular vote is not what matters. Typically electoral voters align with how their state is voting, which is the purpose of the general election. The election wasn't stolen from Gore because he lost the electoral vote.

Oh yeah, so say in California, the Republican candidate wins with 51% of the vote and the Democrat loses with 49%. Then all 55 Electoral voters vote for the Republican candidate. Very representative of what the people want.

#logic

Not Comms Officer · April 28, 2015, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Voro 'Cinotai on April 28, 2015, 10:08:08 PM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 28, 2015, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 09:19:46 PM
I'm not sure how you can say Reagan deserved the win but Bush didn't. The margins in 2000 were much smaller.
Because Reagan actually won the popular vote in 1984, and Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Is that not a good enough reason, or should we just be saying that the popular vote should mean absolutely nothing now...

Al Gore won the election, but the Electoral College stole it from him. Does that not underline any problems with the Electoral College?

The Electoral College didn't really steal it from him, the Supreme Court anointed Bush Jr.

Because of results from the Electoral College.

Verbatim · April 28, 2015, 10:19:25 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 10:02:14 PM

I didn't say it didn't work in those examples. If the electoral college was designed to always reflect the popular vote, it would be unnecessary and redundant.

...Precisely.

Quote

In the cases where it doesn't agree with the popular vote, it's because it's serving its purpose of adjusting the weight of certain states. In fact, I'd say the only time the electoral college actually had a purpose is when it disagrees with the popular vote.

Which makes sense on paper, considering that, theoretically, if I had it my way, California, Texas, and Florida, being the most populous states, would technically have "more of a say" when it comes to elections. I think that's bogus, but whatever. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college marginalizes some people's votes, and inflates the value of others, and that's just not something that I can support in a democratic system...

If more people live in California, all that means to me is that, yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the fewer. That's the whole idea behind democracy, right? And if California is made up of a bunch of partisan morons, then that's an issue with public education, not the voting process. And the electoral college ain't gonna solve that problem.

Mattie G Indahouse · April 29, 2015, 06:27:29 AM

Al Gore. Wins popular vote but still looses to Bush do to EC bullshit.

Turkey · April 29, 2015, 06:55:18 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2015, 10:19:25 PM

If more people live in California, all that means to me is that, yeah, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the fewer. That's the whole idea behind democracy, right? And if California is made up of a bunch of partisan morons, then that's an issue with public education, not the voting process. And the electoral college ain't gonna solve that problem.

But we don't live in a democracy. At best it's a partial democracy. The system is set up to prevent popular majority rule in 2/3 of the branches of government (which would logically lead to an eventual majority rule in the third). In this way, the electoral college forces presidential candidates to appeal to small states and far-flung communities. In a popular vote they could just disregard everything except a few of the most densely populated areas to achieve a victory. A popular vote would make the votes of anyone living outside of those areas effectively useless. Federalism gives the states equitable footing and prevents the country from being dominated by one or two large states.

Magos Domina · April 29, 2015, 07:07:06 AM

American politics is like Blackjack in Vegas.