United States Elections - 2008 downticket races: Senate, so on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I take about "the winner takes it all" systems in general. As you might now I am opposed to all sorts of authoritarian democracy, but to me it seems that in a winner take it all not all people are truly represented.

Originally posted by Strangelove
No shit. I'm well aware of that, thank you, I was just boiling it down to a simple point. People need to educate themselves, not expect that someone else is going to do it for them. People need to find their motivator. As an active member of 3 student involvement advocacy groups on campus, I feel that I'm doing my part.

Here's my issue: You are not talking about the fortunate people, like us, who can have college resources at our disposal. You are talking about the average U.S. citizen. "Educating yourself" goes so far if the social climate around you is not viable to that cause.

Well just check Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Election_2000

It says he lost by a little more than 500 000.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well just check Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Election_2000

It says he lost by a little more than 500 000.

O ok, I'm not crazy. Right president, wrong election 😆

For instance, you take issue with the Electoral College. Well there's currently a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's a law that if passed, guarantees that the winner of the popular vote gets that states' electoral votes. It's somewhat slow going, but so far, 2 states have signed it into law (Maryland and New Jersey).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Originally posted by chithappens
Here's my issue: You are not talking about the fortunate people, like us, who can have college resources at our disposal. You are talking about the average U.S. citizen. "Educating yourself" goes so far if the social climate around you is not viable to that cause.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't really have an issue with the Electoral College, not because it isn't flawed, but because the real shit gets done at the state and local level. That's where the magic happens, so to speak. For instance, when Bush wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, it failed. So what did he do? He left it to the states. And now 38 states have banned gay marriage and/or partnership benefits either by statute or by amending their constitution. You're much more likely to change things on the state and local level than you are on the national level.

I might be ignorant to this but I thought the electoral college was only for zoning off presidential elections. I am unaware of any other uses.

Regardless, the points are not given by the proportion to population so it still doesn't make any sense at all. Some say it makes smaller states seem important and the candidates have to visit but even that's stupid because it not like they sign something that holds them to the promises that make on these bus tours.

Originally posted by Strangelove
For instance, you take issue with the Electoral College. Well there's currently a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's a law that if passed, guarantees that the winner of the popular vote gets that states' electoral votes. It's somewhat slow going, but so far, 2 states have signed it into law (Maryland and New Jersey).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I can honestly say that what you just wrote makes no sense to me.

You say (average/everyday/(insert generic word) Americans are lazy. The average American does not have a college degree. The average American does not care much about politics (this particular is an assumption). So any average citizen is not in a place where the (climate/synergy/paradigm) is supportive of giving a ****.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

Maybe 40%; 30% takes some really weird voting patterns. I'm too lazy to do the math but it's pretty silly to me.

Originally posted by chithappens
You say (average/everyday/(insert generic word) Americans are lazy. The average American does not have a college degree. The average American does not care much about politics (this particular is an assumption). So any average citizen is not in a place where the (climate/synergy/paradigm) is supportive of giving a ****.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

And it's highly unlikely that someone who had 30% of the popular vote would get a majority of the Electoral College. That necessitates the existence of multiple strong candidates, in which case no candidate would get a majority, and then the decision goes to the House of Representatives.

Originally posted by Strangelove
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm at college and I know tons of people who are just as lazy as what you term "average" Americans, politically.

1) The whole average theme came from you.

Originally posted by Strangelove

Basically I'm calling Americans lazy.

Which they are.

I just needed to coin it something. It's a generalization no matter how you put it.

2) Duh, there are lazy, apathetic people in college. My point is that if one is around a majority of people who already don't care and don't have the resources to make change, how can you expect that person to care at all? Again, cute idea, but it's rare. This is a democracy (which makes it seem like a duh point) but even without that system, ALL revolutions occur amongst the masses. A few informed, optimistic people can not make change. History changes with the masses, not the witty elite.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I don't really have an issue with the Electoral College, not because it isn't flawed, but because the real shit gets done at the state and local level. That's where the magic happens, so to speak. For instance, when Bush wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, it failed. So what did he do? He left it to the states. And now 38 states have banned gay marriage and/or partnership benefits either by statute or by amending their constitution. You're much more likely to change things on the state and local level than you are on the national level.

I think that was actually a very good decision.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless, if the Electoral college didn't exist, he would have won the election.

And it's highly unlikely that someone who had 30% of the popular vote would get a majority of the Electoral College. That necessitates the existence of multiple strong candidates, in which case no candidate would get a majority, and then the decision goes to the House of Representatives.

The man got less popular vote, but won the election. Is that okay?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well whats wrong with that? The states that wanted gay marriage, got it. Those that didn't, didn't. If Bush made the whole country ban gay marriage, then those 12 states wouldn't be very happy.

I think that was actually a very good decision.

lol, let them have a referendum on slavery in the south...

or immigration 🙂

Originally posted by Strangelove
Sure, it worked, but discriminating against a group of people like that is wrong...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't really see a big improvement if that happened.

But I mean look at what could possibly happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

He got 59% of the people's approval...but won 98% of the electoral votes. Could someone with say 30% of the popular vote win the whole election?

I don't think so. Doesn't the candidate have to win over 50% of the popular vote for a specific state to win the electoral votes of that state? Of course, that could vary from state to state...but amirite?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so. Doesn't the candidate have to win over 50% of the popular vote for a specific state to win the electoral votes of that state? Of course, that could vary from state to state...but amirite?

So someone could win 51% - 49% in the bigger states and lose all others 100% to 0 and he'd have lost popular vote by a huge, huge margin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are.

So someone could win 51% - 49% in the bigger states and lose all others 100% to 0 and he'd have lost popular vote by a huge, huge margin.

Wow...I never thought of it that way. A person could campaign in the major states extensively and win the election...

hmm

Of course, the other person running would counter-campaign in those states and that would null that strategy most likely.

What about the executive branch having 5 members instead of just the president...as far as executive power goes? That would seem to be a better way to represent Americans. You are more than welcome to criticize that idea...I am open to "you are stupid for thinking of that."