Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, dudes, here is the data with the Electoral Votes Proportionally Distributed. Sorry, Trump fans, Trump did not win enough votes in each state to edge out Hillary and specifically because of NY and CA, Hillary wins this alternative way of distribution. By the way, I tried it both ways: direct proportionally and one where each state has a clear winner (meaning, if they are nearly even, they don't get 2 EVs, each, the winner gets 3 and the loser gets 1). That way, there are not ties in each state. However, that did not change the final numbers, at all, so I stuck with my method of giving each state a clear winner. Here is the result:The only way Trump wins this election is through the current system even though Hillary barely won the popular vote. Sorry, that's the way it is when you analyze the numbers.
Wow, that's really interesting. It's insane how close this election truly was. The popular vote being seperated by only 200k is just incredible in a country this huge. It really does show how divided we are as a country.
Originally posted by RobtardIQ no. I don't believe it should be restricted to those more naturally gifted than others, because that would devalue the efforts of those who acquired the necessary knowledge and reasoning through hard work and study (I'm not expert but as far as I know you can't hard work your way to a higher IQ).
Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote?
Proficiency test? I've never heard that term used for anything but language, but essentially, yeah. There should be a baseline "you must be this informed to vote" that people should fall under.
According to an article ddm posted like a week ago the majority of voters are very uninformed on politics. Why should they be able to influence it then?
Originally posted by ares834
Actually, according to Hamilton, the reason we have an electoral college is because the founding fathers thought the public was full of too many dumb asses to elect a good president and wanted to restrict it to the "elite". Land area has noting to do with it. 👆
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
There's various factors involved in it. It being a check on the people is an essential component, but land area has also become a relevant reason on why it's a thing.
Which I think is ridiculous. I see no reason why someone living in an rural area should have the vote count for more than someone in a city.
Originally posted by dadudemonNailed it.
Isn't this very telling? This is more like rural vs. city.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote?
I agree that I wouldn't say necessarily an IQ test. But some kind of proficiency test wouldn't be a bad idea.
After all I had to prove to someone I knew what I was doing when it came to driving before I legally could.
I realize the response to this usually is "well driving is a privilege and voting is a right". But for me the question is..maybe one single uneducated person can't do any damage with a vote. But scores of them? Could, and I know pretty much every Hilary supporter agree's with that.
Any reasons we might have had don't really apply anymore. It's not about why we have it, it's about why we kept it around for this long.
Ideally we'd go by popular vote and have a limit of 1 term. This means the president can concentrate the entire time on making the country a better place as opposed to potentially hesitating to take certain actions in order to assure they get elected a 2nd time.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Proficiency test? I've never heard that term used for anything but language, but essentially, yeah. There should be a baseline "you must be this informed to vote" that people should fall under.
I proposed such a test, before. It would test two things:
Your knowledge of how politics work in the US (a US Civics test, if you will).
Your knowledge of the current candidates and their positions.
If you can't pass both, you don't get a license to vote. And you'd have to retest every time you wanted to vote.
This would force candidates to have a platform before they could run...or at least we would have to require the candidates meet a minimum amount a "positions" so tests could be formed from them. And who would make the tests? I proposed that it would be political science professors but I do have a bias towards them since I studied that quite a bit in college and was exposed to both liberal and conservative political science professors. One of my friends suggested it be a mixture of professors and pundits from the political community...but I fear the injection of far too much political games if that happens.
I would never want trick questions on that test. ALWAYS straightforward answers on the test. And the questions and answers would be agreed to by the campaign people of each candidate...for the most part.
Originally posted by NemeBro
According to an article ddm posted like a week ago the majority of voters are very uninformed on politics. Why should they be able to influence it then?
This is a question that has been plaguing civilized humans for millennia. I am considered an "extremely well-informed" voter compared to the rest of the people out there. But I know for a fact that I am also EXTREMELY ignorant of many many things in politics which makes my relative label of "extremely well-informed" quite empty.
Personally, if I rated myself on whether or not I would get that license to vote in the system we are talking about, I'd give myself a 50-50 chance of passing the second test. 😐
Originally posted by Surtur
I realize the response to this usually is "well driving is a privilege and voting is a right". But for me the question is..maybe one single uneducated person can't do any damage with a vote. But scores of them? Could, and I know pretty much every Hilary supporter agree's with that.
And this is the problem...tens of millions of ignorant voters go to the polls every election. And those ignorant voters were persuaded with PR machines from the candidates. So they aren't just ignorant, they are purposefully misinformed so now they are not just voting in ignorance, they are voting with false or misleading information which is worse than a purely ignorant vote.
That's scary as f*** to me and that's how the game has been played for a while.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's an ungodly stupid argument. Why should we care about land are? If I go to Antarctica and live there for a while, should I receive more sway in the United Nations than Canada, France and the UK put together?
Sure, if 37.3% of the UN population lives in Antarctica like they do in the US comparison we are talking about. 62.7 of the US lives in what the US Census Bureau calls "incorporated" areas (urban and suburban areas).
So, yeah, if 37.3% of all the population of all members of the UN were living in Antarctica, your sarcastic rhetoric would be met with a serious "yes, obviously they should be given more sway in the United Nations than Canada, France, and the UK put together."
You may want to rethink your sarcastic rhetoric. I think you are close to making a good point but just haven't set up a good metaphor for it, yet. No, I am not patronizing you: I am serious. It is because after you form a good piece of sarcastic rhetoric, I will steal it for arguments like this in the future to make my points even better.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Then most of the people protesting wouldn't have been allowed to vote as they don't seem to understand the EC.
Indeed. Which makes me quite happy. I obtained a very useless political science degree. Let me tell you...everyone is ignorant as f*** when it comes to political science and to how the US Government works EVEN IN THE DAMN DEGREE PROGRAM.