Honda CBR 600RR Forum banner

21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
Not saying it's not democratic, like you said, it was chosen to do so. And it stems from the US being multiple states. I'm just saying that their democracy doesn't represent the majority of the voters. And this, imho, is contradictory to why you'd want a democracy.
It's the same here as in Spain I guess. Multiple parties, the biggest party can lead the negotiations first, if it fails, the King appoints somebody else etc. But in the end, a coalition has to be formed, representing the majority of the voters.


That's where it seems kinda weird to me in the US system.
That's the problem...it's not what "we" (the majority of America) wanted. He didn't win the popular vote and that demonstrates how incredibly frustrating our voting system is. It's insane that a candidate can lose the popular vote by 700,000 votes yet still win the electoral college by a very healthy margin.


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
The indirect system of choosing a new president is certainly interesting but there is a method behind the apparent madness. The United States is in fact made up of states, not just a big mob of us humans milling around in a single amorphous blob. One of the intentions in the creation of the electoral system was to combine a popular vote (population based) with a state based selection (meaning every state gets to vote for who gets elected). What we end up with is this combination where each state gets one choice but states with more people get more weight. It makes a sort of sense when you realize that what is best for the country is not always what's best for a single state, even if that state has a massive population. In an extreme case we could end up with one or two giant states that pick the president every single time. Heck I live in Texas and even I wouldn't want us to pick every single president and force everyone else in the country to deal with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,473 Posts
Been hearing this security clearance for DJT's adult children which supposed to be the blind thrust of his empire? I mean, here he hold Hillary for sharing classified info but yet he went ten steps further?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I can't see how the US system is "democratic". Democrats had 700k more votes than the Liberals, yet, because of that electorial system, Trump still won. It's a very weird system...


I'm very curious to see how the next 4 years unfold. Could have a very big impact on our economy as well.
The US system is not a democracy; it is a representative democracy meaning there are people (electors) who are supposed to represent the people of their state.

In reality our vote in the majority of states doesn't mean anything but that is NOT a reason in my mind to not vote (I believe that it's better to express your voice in some way rather than being silent). I firmly believe the system should change to make one persons vote equal one vote for the president. It's silly that as it stands the smaller your states population is the more of an impact you theoretically have on the election.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
The US system is not a democracy; it is a representative democracy meaning there are people (electors) who are supposed to represent the people of their state.

In reality our vote in the majority of states doesn't mean anything but that is NOT a reason in my mind to not vote (I believe that it's better to express your voice in some way rather than being silent). I firmly believe the system should change to make one persons vote equal one vote for the president. It's silly that as it stands the smaller your states population is the more of an impact you theoretically have on the election.
:ponder: Can you explain how?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
:ponder: Can you explain how?
Sure, I'll use the 3 biggest vs 3 smallest states (I'm going to count DC as a state as it gets its own votes) as an example.

State------Rank ---Population-------Electoral Votes
_______________________________________
California---1------38,332,521---------55
Texas-------2------26,448,193---------38
New York---3------19,651,127---------29

DC----------49-----646,449-------------3
Vermont----50-----626,630-------------3
Wyoming---51-----582,658-------------3

These would be the ratios of votes / electoral college vote:
California---696,955 : 1
Texas-------696,005 : 1
New York---677,625 : 1
VS
DC----------215,483 : 1
Vermont----208,877 : 1
Wyoming---194,219 : 1

Meaning someones vote in Wyoming is worth over 3 times more than someones vote in California.

I think this is a silly system because swing states end up deciding the election and if you don't live in a swing state your vote almost doesn't count. In an America with no electoral college Californian republicans and Kentucky democrats would actually have an effect on the outcome of the election.

This would also give more power to 3rd parties rarely ever get any electoral votes and increase voter turnout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
Sure, I'll use the 3 biggest vs 3 smallest states (I'm going to count DC as a state as it gets its own votes) as an example.
..
Meaning someones vote in Wyoming is worth over 3 times more than someones vote in California.

I think this is a silly system because swing states end up deciding the election and if you don't live in a swing state your vote almost doesn't count. In an America with no electoral college Californian republicans and Kentucky democrats would actually have an effect on the outcome of the election.

This would also give more power to 3rd parties rarely ever get any electoral votes and increase voter turnout.
That is true, each person's single vote has more influence - but only within their own state. But your whole analysis and the idea that the proportions are off is based on trying to make every vote count exactly the same as every other vote and that's not the goal of the electoral system, if it was we would simply use the popular vote. Remember, this system is a compromise that mixes the solution of a popular vote and a state vote. I'm not defending it, just saying it seems to do what it was meant to do.

Just think about how it used to be when you didn't even vote for the candidates, you voted for your local elector and you were supposed to pick someone smart enough to choose the president wisely. That probably worked when everyone knew everyone else around but these days most people can't even name their own congressman much less some unknown elector.

The swing state thing is because those are the states that aren't so entirely entrenched in a single ideology that they actually can be influenced to vote for a candidate while most states have a majority clinging to whichever side of the political fence they want to win regardless of who is running. If everyone actually did the hard work of weighing their decisions based on merit instead of choosing a side and then looking for reasons to validate that choice then all the states would be swing states.:banger:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
The current electoral system is the best compromise between the popular and state votes. It is meant to keep the dense population centers from completely overshadowing the voices of the less densely populated areas of the country and this election cycle has proven its effectiveness. Otherwise CA, TX, NY, FL and PA would pretty much decide the president for the other 45 states every single time simply because they hold the largest populations.

Right now the setup is one of winning the popular vote, but of each state at a time. Essentially the goal is to win the popular vote of more states than the opposition. Which in this case I think Reps won around 30 of the states. So in a sense, Reps won the majority of votes in the majority of states.

For those arguing for the total popular vote of the country, I agree, Dems won that one. But take away the biggest state for each party, CA and TX, and that story immediately changes. That's the reason why the current electoral system is effective. The heavily populated states don't completely silence the smaller ones (ie. CA completely cancelling out about 20 other states via population).

In a supporting argument for the current system think of it this way, like in some sports: Basketball and Baseball off the top of my head.
Each individual vote relates to 1 point scored.
Each state relates to 1 game played.

The goal for each of the sports is to win the best of 7 games.
Say it goes like this:
Game 1; Team 1 - 20pts vs Team 2 - 1pt
Game 2; Team 1 - 20pts vs Team 2 - 1pt
Game 3; Team 1 - 20pts vs Team 2 - 1pt
Game 4; Team 1 - 1pt vs Team 2 - 2pts
Game 5; Team 1 - 1pt vs Team 2 - 2pts
Game 6; Team 1 - 1pt vs Team 2 - 2pts
Game 7; Team 1 - 1pt vs Team 2 - 2pts

Total points scored; Team 1 - 64pts vs Team 2 - 11pts
Total games won; Team 1 - 3 games vs Team 2 - 4 games
Result; Team 2 wins despite the gigantic difference in points scored.

Now put these numbers into the scale of the popular vote vs states won and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
All I gotta say is, if you listen to DJT speak and think that man has an ounce of intelligence, lord help us all. He is a buffoon, and always has been.
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top