President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
Each U.S state has two senators. Congressional members are apportioned by population.

People have looked at the change you suggest. Looked hard at it. The problem would be -- if the presidential election was decided by the popular vote -- the biggest, most populous states would pretty much control who was president. The candidates could ignore the smaller states and just concentrate on a few big states. The Founding Fathers wanted each state to have some voice in electing the president.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the Founding Fathers. A person shouldn't have a greater voice just because they live in a sparsely populated area.
 
acbytesla said:
Maybe it will be amended now that this has happened.

People only think about it every 4 years and it has only mattered once before I think.
Click to expand...

There are still some problems with going for a purely popular vote. It's the same argument that comes up with every state having the same number of senators instead of it all being based on population.

The US is big, and is very culturally diverse. The different states have different issues and different interests. Some of those interests are based on geographic features. If a large number of people live in a very densely populated, but overall small geographic area, they can end up having undue sway on the entire process. You end up completely disenfranchising rural and suburban people, as well as people in states with smaller populations. Alaska, for example, would end up with no voice at all.
 
Marcus said:
I don't agree with the Founding Fathers. A person shouldn't have a greater voice just because they live in a sparsely populated area.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it's doubtful we would have one nation today without it. It was the great compromise.
 
Marcus said:
I don't agree with the Founding Fathers. A person shouldn't have a greater voice just because they live in a sparsely populated area.
Click to expand...

And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.

Would it make sense for Parisians to determine policy for Iceland?
 
dudalb said:
Then there is the divide the electorial college members by the percentage of the votes in the state each candidate gets, not winner take all..which a couple of states do and you don't need a constitutional admendment to do it.
Click to expand...


Great idea. Let's start with California.
 
Emily's Cat said:
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.

Would it make sense for Parisians to determine policy for Iceland?
Click to expand...

Does Alaska not have a state government? That would solve that issue. It's weird to see a system set up to maximize voter disenfranchisement.
 
Emily's Cat said:
In my opinion, all of our time would be better spent trying to gain a *genuine* understanding of the situation. Why did Clinton lose? What aspects of her campaign and/or her character left voters dissatisfied? Why did Trump win? What aspects of his campaign and/or character garnered votes? Given some of the stuff he's said... why were those things dismissed by voters? This is what I'd like to understand... and just calling half the country "meshbacks" doesn't get me any closer to that.
Click to expand...

It's the voting system that we are cursed with. FPTP voting over time trends toward a 2 party system.



A 2 party system does not fairly represent the majority of the electorate. Life isn't black and white, and it's very rare for an individual to agree with every policy or proposal of a given political party.

If you only get one vote then it oftentimes is better for your interests to vote tactically. You might vote for the lesser of two evils, you might vote purely based on party lines, you might vote to make sure 'that other candidate' can't win.

Perhaps you agree with slightly more of the policies of candidate X than candidate Y.

A multiple party system would offer voters more choice in who to vote for and would mean the views of the electorate are fairly represented in government. The politicians who get in have to work harder to get laws passed, but that's a good thing.

Sadly if the people in power get elected into office using a FPTP system and then stand to lose a lot of power by changing to a much better voting system. (I prefer STV, other alternatives are available) Then the chances of them changing the voting laws are effectively zero.

I think that the single most corrupt thing about our democracy is the fact that we use FPTP to determine the winners of elections, both here in the UK and in the US. Not only does it limit elections to a binary choice between 2 main parties, but it actively disenfranchises people from voting. If you hate both candidates, and are convinced your single vote won't make a difference then your enthusiasm to engage with the political system and to go and vote at all are much lower, which is a sad state of affairs.


It looks to me that Trump won the election because Hilary is unpopular and didn't motivate enough of her supporters to actually vote, at the same time as Trump connecting with voters who don't normally vote, and who opinion pollsters totally missed.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There are still some problems with going for a purely popular vote. It's the same argument that comes up with every state having the same number of senators instead of it all being based on population.

The US is big, and is very culturally diverse. The different states have different issues and different interests. Some of those interests are based on geographic features. If a large number of people live in a very densely populated, but overall small geographic area, they can end up having undue sway on the entire process. You end up completely disenfranchising rural and suburban people, as well as people in states with smaller populations. Alaska, for example, would end up with no voice at all.
Click to expand...

I know. There is no perfect system. Still, we gave rural states far too much power. Twenty rural states representing about a 40th the population has 40 percent of the voting power in the Senate and the more populous states kow tow to them.
 
Stacko said:
Does Alaska not have a state government? That would solve that issue. It's weird to see a system set up to maximize voter disenfranchisement.
Click to expand...

Sure... but there's a lot of regulations, laws, and policies that are defined at the federal level. There are tones of bills through congress each year that address state and local issues. Subsidies for farmers in middle america, for example.
 
Emily's Cat said:
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.

Would it make sense for Parisians to determine policy for Iceland?
Click to expand...

Yet people in Alaska with no understanding of the issues of urban cities wield far too much power over their urban brethren. For example gun violence in the cities. Hell, in Alaska everyone is packing. There is a NEED for firearms. This is not true in Chicago or LA.
 
acbytesla said:
I know. There is no perfect system. Still, we gave rural states far too much power. Twenty rural states representing about a 40th the population has 40 percent of the voting power in the Senate and the more populous states kow tow to them.
Click to expand...

Each state is a semi sovereign equal. Their population is not as relevant.
 
smartcooky said:
I haven't made any suggestions, I'm trying to understand how it works. Why, for example does California have 55 votes, Florida 29 and Nevada only 5? In this determined (ultimately) by population?...
Click to expand...

This is from the U.S. Government's Electoral College website:
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census. The allocations are based on the 2010 Census. They are effective for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections.
Click to expand...

California with a population of 37.5 million residents has 55 electoral votes. Florida which has roughly about half the population compared to California (18.9 million) has about half as many electoral votes, 29, and Nevada with just 2.7 million residents has 6.
 
Emily's Cat said:
And a person living in Alaska shouldn't have all of their policies determined by urbanites from California who have no understanding of what goes on in Alaska.
Click to expand...
It works both ways doesn't it? An Alaskan doesn't necessarily understand what is important to a California urbanite, why should his voice carry more weight?

But no, an Alaskan shouldn't have all his policies determine by a Californian, that is what state government is for.
 
newyorkguy said:
Each U.S state has two senators. Congressional members are apportioned by population.

People have looked at the change you suggest. Looked hard at it. The problem would be -- if the presidential election was decided by the popular vote -- the biggest, most populous states would pretty much control who was president. The candidates could ignore the smaller states and just concentrate on a few big states. The Founding Fathers wanted each state to have some voice in electing the president.
Click to expand...

Why is that different to what happens now?

Both political parties put a lot of effort into campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia and significantly less into other states. In 2012 those 4 states took over 50% of the 2 main parties campaigning efforts.

It's mathematically possible to win a US presidential election with 22% of the popular vote. Twenty Two percent! That'll never happen in the real world, but 4 times in history the winning candidate has lost the popular vote but won the presidential election. 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016. That's almost 9% of the time an election is held.

Would you enjoy a football game if 9% of the time the losing team were awarded the win? I wouldn't.

How much more important is electing your countries leader than a game of football?
 
Ambrosia said:
Why is that different to what happens now?

Both political parties put a lot of effort into campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia and significantly less into other states. In 2012 those 4 states took over 50% of the 2 main parties campaigning efforts.

It's mathematically possible to win a US presidential election with 22% of the popular vote. Twenty Two percent! That'll never happen in the real world, but 4 times in history the winning candidate has lost the popular vote but won the presidential election. 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016. That's almost 9% of the time an election is held.

Would you enjoy a football game if 9% of the time the losing team were awarded the win? I wouldn't.

How much more important is electing your countries leader than a game of football?
Click to expand...

It is the most important. That is why the role of 50 equal sovereigns must also be a factor.
 
acbytesla said:
Yet people in Alaska with no understanding of the issues of urban cities wield far too much power over their urban brethren. For example gun violence in the cities. Hell, in Alaska everyone is packing. There is a NEED for firearms. This is not true in Chicago or LA.
Click to expand...

Like I said - no good solution I can come up with. It's equally disproportionate for those Chicago and LA folks to decide that Alaskans can't have guns because of the problems with violence in cities ;)

Neither equal representation nor population representation is a good solution by itself.
 
Marcus said:
It works both ways doesn't it? An Alaskan doesn't necessarily understand what is important to a California urbanite, why should his voice carry more weight?

But no, an Alaskan shouldn't have all his policies determine by a Californian, that is what state government is for.
Click to expand...

It's why we have both a house and a senate, with representation done in two different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Each state is a semi sovereign equal. Their population is not as relevant.
Click to expand...


From what I have seen discussed by historians and scholars that is a pretty good answer. This was one of the challenges the Founders had. How to ensure that each state in the union would did have -- if not an equal voice -- some equality as member states. Thus you have the U.S. Senate -- the body that must approve actions taken in the House of Representatives (in which each state has members in proportion to their to population) -- where each state has two senators regardless of population. It was about equality within the union of states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom