Elephants and Jackasses...

I've never understood this argument. Even if California and New York were somehow so politically homogenous that they delivered 100% of their votes to a single party, it still wouldn't be enough to win a popular vote election. We currently have a system that is hyper focused on the needs and wants of a few medium-sized swing states, but somehow that is acceptable, where a system in which our economic and population centers get focused on (to any degree) is supposedly totally unbalanced.

If anything the biggest flaw in the system is that nearly every state is winner take all. It makes campaigning in California, New York, Texas, etc a complete waste of time, even if a candidate would be able to pick up literally hundreds of thousands of votes by doing so.

 

An argument that can't be won.

That is a good point. There should be balance, people live all over your country. It's not quite like ours where must of us huddle near your border for the warmth from your wonderous electrical street lights. Looking at this as an outsider, certain things counter that point as well. Like the fact Wyoming has less than the population of my city, California has more than the population country, and in the end those two states add up to having the same amount of stroke in Washington.

From a math stand point, that doesn't add up. I can't take a side on it either way because both make equally good points.

But as a Canadian I'll tell you this: when we do our Provincial election here, the city of Toronto on its own gets to decide who rules Ontario. You decide if that's fair or not.

 

I feel that when people say that if it were down to only a popular vote, only California and New York and such would decide the election is incorrect. I don't think its a good argument because it combines elements of the electoral system in the anti-popular vote argument. You can't treat large blue states like singular bodies because they all contain people from both sides of the aisle. So every vote would count the same and the candidate would have to fight for every single vote. It wouldn't matter which candidate won a certain state because it won't be counted that way.

You would have more democrats in coastal places and republicans in the middle but it wouldn't matter. Everyone's vote counts the same.

 

I've found that tyranny of the majority is best addressed by things like judicial protections and requiring greater consensus (such as the requirement that Constitutional amendments require 2/3 votes in both chambers of the Congress) than by weighting the votes of certain populations more heavily.

As an experiment I'd be interested to see how a system fared in which states would forfeit their representation if they couldn't field a candidate that received 60% or more of the votes cast. It'd either lead to meaningful compromise candidates or it'd totally implode; not entirely sure which.

I see it as the complete opposite. I won't pretend there isn't some sense of superiority and arrogance in the cities, but it feels far outweighed by the visceral hatred that the middle of the country has for the cities.

 

It's this. I'm a firm Liberal and even I can't stand a lot of the east coast (particularly the northeast) elitism.

 

I call them caviar liberals. Or whatever other rich person food you want to apply. The kind of people who will sit around, sip wine, eat caviar, and discuss the problems of the world and profess self-righteous points of view from their suburban Connecticut homes. But god-forbid little Madison brings home a black guy...or a black family moves into the neighborhood. Then you hear discussions of property values and "bad elements". I'm not saying this behavior is exclusive to that area of the country, but to see them routinely vote democrat, talk about how righteous they are about social issues and talk down about those they see as lesser is just a wee-bit hypocritical.

 

I can see that being a good compromise on the issue. It would certainly make elections more exciting and people in traditional blue and red states would get to vote more meaningfully instead of saying, "Welp, I live in Texas, so my vote really doesn't matter.", like I said when I voted.

 

I'm not sure if it's comforting or terrifying that we're not the only country led by a moron who believes fake news and tweets about nuclear weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/world/asia/pakistan-israel-khawaja-asif-fake-news-nuclear.html

 

When people ask what the big deal is about fake news - this is the big deal.

 

This.

In Texas, my presidential vote truly does not matter. You can make the argument -- as I did this year, shouting it from the hilltops to everyone I knew -- that there is a moral obligation to vote based on the men and women who have died to give that right to you.... But the way politics is headed, and the way it is right now (guess trump likes swamp water after all), there is almost as much if not more "worth" behind not voting and showing your dissatisfaction by being counted as a person who stays at home.

Beyond extremely local politics, where even then it is marginal, what does my vote really do? If I'm going to take, say, an hour or two out of my day to vote, I'm thinking that time might be better spent holding up a sign somewhere like "who do you want your children idolizing?" or "WorldStarHipHop.com cleaned Clinton's servers."

 

Maybe we need to stop picking between two bowls of shit and instead rank 5 bowls of shit from bad to worst. This gets rid of the electoral college and corrupt as fuck primaries.

For example, my ballot would have been:

1. Bernie
2. Hillary
3. Johnson
   
4. Kasich
5. Bush

With a ranked system, it ensures that all of the candidates have to campaign in each state. As a candidate, you're more incentivized to talk about how you want to fix the issues instead of trashing the other candidates. If you see yourself not winning a state, you'll still want to campaign there because you'll need every point you can get. In addition, this would essentially end the two party system because it gives other candidates an actual chance to win.

 

Jeb and Johnson made your list? Jeez man. That is some shit.

If you want to make it fair, treat primary voting like the general election. Anyone can vote based on their preference. End of. Of the guys you mentioned Bernie got cheated by the DNC, Johnson plummeted every time he got his little bit of exposure, Jeb and Kasich were despised by voters, and Hillary failed in the general.

Give everyone a shot, but a fair shot and eliminate them as they're rejected. I don't want to see a general election with ten people at the debates, rank your top five.

 

I think primaries need to fuck off. All they do is force candidates to appeal to the crazies in the party. Having one election with ranked candidates ensures that primaries go away and that the DNC and RNC can't control who can and can't run.

 

I'm a big fan of ranked voting. But the primary stuff is parties deciding who they want to run and that's up to them. If I want to work with my best friend and campaign to get him elected, I don't need your permission to do so, and neither should the political parties necessarily. But ranked voting does a lot to solve the problems by itself. Though I'd also want election time limits (Elections last x weeks long max, not 19 months or whatever), campaign spending limits, and contribution limits.

I am not exactly holding my breath.

 

Whatever we do, we need a solution where a candidate who is mostly positive to 70% of the country will beat a candidate who is rabidly supported by 46% and rabidly hated by 45%

 

Why?

Are your percentages "the country" or voters?

 

Either. It's more the point that we should have leaders that are to some degree compromise candidates and will govern for the benefit of the country as a whole, not rabid fanatics representing the smallest segment of the population possible while still maintaining a plurality.

 

So, I've gotten reps and pms saying I'm biased towards the dems. I don't think it's bias, I'm just calling out the party for the fucking disaster it is in its current incarnation.

Donna Brazile is now complaining about the wikileaks spreading 'misinformation'.



The wikileaks simply posted the e-mails. That is just information, plain and straight. The only misinformation was what came from news outlets trying to find ways to spin what was in the leaks into something different than the incriminating information therein. Other news lied about them or told you not to read them. You can't sell this crap, and the democrats should have learned from their recent failures. They're still living in a fantasy world where you can craft some argument, and change the facts at a whim. If they had sense they would stop talking about it because all they're doing is drawing more attention to it and embarrassing themselves further as people who blatantly lie, no matter how in contrast with the obvious.

Then, Obama makes sure the US doesn't use it's veto to protect one of our long time allies. Of course, Israel flat out rejected the UN resolution because any realistic look at the situation tells you Israel adopting a two state solution would not end, it would only worsen their problems. Make no mistake, he knows full well the futility of his action. He did it to look good for dumbasses in his base. So he pisses off one of our most important allies in a completely ineffective measure to pander to low information idiots. Awesome.

Ivanka Trump is leaving the business behind and is planning on taking a more active role in the new administration. She drafted the paid maternity leave plan, is a liberal on most issues, supports pro-environment policies, and would be a great influence on health care, but no, this is a catastrophic horror. She's a psycho who is going to rape the country of its resources and destroy women. Seriously? Ivanka Trump is one of the most likeable people I've seen on a campaign trail and they're desperately coming up with reasons this is bad because there's no thought that goes into it, just partisan garbage.

There is very little policy discussion, and non-stop outrage over things that either never happened, or insinuating of things that 'will totally happen' by taking a yarn thread and finding a way to spin it into some way over the top worst case scenario. This isn't liberalism, this is just bullshit.

Trump is an asshole, he's an imperfect president elect for sure. If you want to win people over go into the arena and let your ideas win on their merit. Pretending policy doesn't exist and repeatedly spreading this crazed interpretation of everything that is part of the administration isn't an argument. Simply labeling people slack jawed racists isn't an argument. This idea that you can deny reality, or make up reality, and rewrite it to your will to make your side the 'good one' needs to fucking go already.

This country needs a left wing that doesn't have its head firmly wedged up its ass.