tshile

this can be addrrssed by allocating partials by district. Maine and Nebraska do this. but you’re right that absolutely is the best argument. In fact, earlier I said a problem with the national vote is a place like CA controls the outcome but by suppressing those votes from the EC system they’re already having an outsized impact on the result 😂 imagine if those people simply lived in another state that was either a swing state or close to it, the whole map changes.

To me this is a problem caused by the fact that we pick ****ty leaders. Not how we pick them. it doesn’t matter whether an election uses popular vote or some system that breaks people into groups and weights them. The results seem bad to pretty ****ty, consistently. For instance scotus judges are supposed to be confirmed the fact it’s a rubber stamp for either party in power at this point, making it the president that essentially single handily pick scotus, is not going to be fixed by changing the method with which we select ****ty people.

On this point - I don’t have sympathy for people that come up with an excuse to not vote. It’s your civic duty and it’s the one thing you can do to have a voice and if you choose to make excuses then I have zero interest in adjusting a single thing to cater to you. Could you imagine the mess that would be 😂

I don’t think the right answer is for either group to have outsized power. my issue is that popular vote swings the pendulum too far in the other direction the concern the EC is out of balance is totally legit and should be solved. part of the problem is people see moral righteousness in their political ideology. It’s not hard to think how people in rural areas want and need things that are different. But if you convince yourself that their wants and needs are simply rooted in hatred and ignorance it allows you to write those differences off as unimportant - or even think it’s good to adjust the system so they lose any ability to have a voice in a presidential election. (This problem exists in both directions, and in a variety of ways, just illustrating one example) this would be less of an issue if the federal government (and the executive specifically) haven’t been sucking up power over the decades. If states had more control over themselves, I’d be less against the idea. I think part of the problem is some people have attached themselves to the idea that the only way to “fairly” represent people is a popular vote. I totally get why if you think that, the rest of this will never make sense. But if you’re limited to that mentality then it is what it is; no one can fix that for you (general you, you’ve explained you’re trying to be open minded.) The reality is that it’s not the only way. I’m not aware of another country in the world that is a democracy, that is this large, that has this level of diversity throughout it. Comparing us to a smaller, closer to monolithic European country seems to miss some pretty important distinctions. I’m not sure any country in the world has to somehow navigate such challenges and maintain a democracy the way we do. (I’m aware other countries have rural and city people, hopefully what I said makes sense but I suck at communicating sometimes) 🤷‍♂️ Finally - one party seemed invested in making the government as dysfunctional as possible. I absolutely understand the desire to remove voting power from the people that support them, but I don’t think it’s the right way to solve that problem either.

There’s definitely an argument that the binding of EC votes is a problem and it was not intended to be that way. and last I checked no, not every state is that way.

Because the # of people concentrated in cities and the surrounding suburbs significantly outnumber everyone else. so you have one set of lifestyle and needs outweigh the other. the EC balances that back out so one lifestyle and set of needs isn’t the only one that wins all the time. (again - I think it needs to be adjusted to be more fair and has become out of whack. That’s different than saying it needs to be tossed for popular vote) if you’re going to be that disingenuous then have at it yeah I don’t know why I bothered. I knew better and did it anyways (story of my life) cause @bearrockand @Renegade7 are polite and reasonable and I was trying to be respectful instead of being like “lol figure it out yourself we already discussed it earlier in the thread” I’ll again point out that I think I’ve made an effort to understand their gripes, and explain what I think they’re missing, and I’ve yet to see where any of them have attempted to do the same. it’s the same talking points over and over and I’d get further trying to explain it a rock

I think there’s enough posts on this board between the two of us to suggest we want the same thing and share the same fears. We see different ways of getting there, and see different problems with each others opinions on it. But I think we want the same thing - a functioning government that does its best to do the best for the people, as a whole and within the constraints of reality. Few quick points: - I think it’s a logical flaw to take the last 8 years and use it as a reason to totally revamp a system in place for hundreds of years. - dems/liberals/progressives have a pretty solid history of being shortsighted in changing rules only to later have those changes used by republicans to do 10x the damage whatever benefit was originally sought - I’m not convinced the dems are some altruistic party, and hence I’m not convinced adjusting the system such that they win hands down with the presidency every time for the foreseeable future is a good idea. I don’t think the dems are immune to some version of what has happened to the republicans. In some ways you can see how it’s already happened. People love to generalize and use others actions to excuse their own. There’s legitimately many posters here that think that by virtue of identifying as a republican they are evil - they’ve literally said as much. - generally I think short cuts are a bad idea.

so your point is that while I pointed out it seems to be people wanting to change the rules so they can win easier and more often, that if the roles were reversed the other side would do the same? great. I’m glad you agree this isn’t about what’s right or wrong, or what is the best system, but is simply about people trying to change the rules so their preferred outcome occurred more often or with more ease. edit: I’m half serious half having fun with you. I’m not trying to be disrespectful to you either. I feel like through this debate I’ve at least tried to concede your side has some legitimate gripes, while providing what I think is a better way of looking at it and pointing out my gripes with your proposed solution. I do not feel like your side has bothered doing the same. Silly jabs at people like you that we go back and forth on many topics aside - I don’t recall any of you seriously considering that there are different ways to respect the country or exploring the idea. It seems to be national popular vote is better and thats all there is to the argument. With the occasional poster doing their “it’s all about racism” shtick.

@bearrock all good I just don’t have it in me to go through the same routine right now that was already gone through. The vast majority of posters in this thread think the EC is about empowering pro slavery states and seem to think national popular vote is the only way to represent the country for the office of the presidency. Arguing seems pointless, but I didn’t want to be disrespectful towards you. So I tried to be brief. I don’t expect you or anyone else to reread the whole thread and you were politely asking a simple question. I do think strictly adhering to decisions made hundreds of years ago is silly. im all for considering different options to things in an attempt to recognize the country has changed and the world has changed - obviously mechanisms were provided to reflect that was always a consideration. my preference would be to try to appreciate the difference ways you can represent people, ideas, and states - and keep that while fixing some of the issues with it that have developed over time. I think national popular vote is a short cut, has pit falls, and happens to almost solely benefit the part the people pushing the idea prefer to win. 🤷‍♂️

Just to quickly add to my other comment: at least they guarded against what I was saying. Which makes it less stupid. Unfortunate I don’t get to see what I thought would be hilarious - but the likelihood was tiny anyways (I assume, based on recent trends) but to your question - it’s been explained already in this thread and I’m not interested in revisiting it all over again but I also don’t want to be disrespectful. So in short - the country in its entirety his not well represented by the national popular vote, popular vote would likely reduce the presidency to major cities and their suburbs deciding every election. The wants, needs, and views of those people do not reflect everyone else. Furthermore the president is not a king - it is but one of 3 branches of government, and the legislative already works on popular vote. You’d take 1 branch of 3 that are selected in different ways to form representation, and make it like one of the others. I think there’s value in the idea behind the EC - it clearly gives weight to things in a different way than how the legislature is formed, and I think that was the idea. that said - the mechanism for adjusting to demographic changes (the census) seems inadequate. I’m all for making the EC system better and fixing it and open to all ideas. Reducing it to simply popular vote seems to miss the point entirely - although it seems clear (to me) some simply want it because the last 30 years suggest their party would win every time. If you’re willing to consider that there are other ways to represent people, you can see how there’s value in the EC (even if you think the EC needs adjusting, or maybe you just think there’s an alternative system that would be better.) it’s a large country. The people on the coasts want and need very different things than the people in the middle. We have a house a senate and the office of the president, and no one group has total control. I like that we have a system like this. I like that a party can win the presidency - yet not just get everything they want. I like that we have senators and members of the house that represent people in different ways, and a presidency that represents states in another. I think it’s good states have influence on the presidency, when they would have almost none if we did a national popular vote. I don’t think it would be good if the presidency was reduced to simply representing coastal cities and their suburbs. But again - I don’t think it’s perfect and I certainly think it could/should be adjusted to be better. I don’t think that CA having so many people, means they should be able exercise heavy influence on an office thats supposed to represent 50 states DC and territories.

gotcha. So it only works when it’s in their favor. 😂 This is in the explanation for why popular vote is stupid. you all just don’t like it or wo t accept it and keep saying the EC makes individual votes worthless or outsized values and ignore the pitfalls of popular vote. just like you ignore that popular vote gets you control in other ways at the top, and that we have a system that’s counter balanced. it really just comes down to dems not liking that the EC levels the playing field on the president, and doesn’t just hand it over to the major cities to decide every year.

Until congress amends the constitution? 😂 Sure. They can do that after they figure out how to actually fund the government 😂

Right now? None. but this right here is the flaw. The assumption that what is, will always be. Changing demographics down the road can certainly create a situation where dems are not always winning the popular vote, and some of these states become affected because their EC’s (the thing that actually determines the winner) go for the other side. the country has a pretty rich history of demographics changing over time… you said it yourself. States that used to be swing states, currently are not; states that used to be a lock, are now swing or potential swing states. so long as this remains a commitment only by (currently) blue states, there will always exist an opportunity for a states EVs (the thing that matters) to go against the states voters because of the popular vote (the thing that doesn’t matter) (which is to say nothing of the likelihood of said opportunity)

This is great because it’s all blue states and they ride on dems winning the popular vote. I’ll enjoy the election where republicans win the popular vote and all these dem states cast their electors for the republican, when all along not a single red state ever has their electors vote against their state’s results because they never signed onto it (the way things are going who knows if we’ll ever see that day but I sure hope we do 😂)

I don’t have a parent or in law like that. but I watched and aunt do the same thing - slight differences in details that don’t matter. And destroy an entire family. you really don’t get to know people until there’s real money at stake, and then you see who they really are.

I tried to love my inlaws it didn’t go very well now we get along well enough we can get together for things, and they certainly help out whenever we ask. but the relationship has a low ceiling now. I guess it always did it just took me a long time to realize that.

This is him his whole career, you’re just now noticing?

October.

Trying to use logic to explain who would choose to vote for a candidate like rfk jr and why, is dangerous. They’re concerned because they know that, and that means the impact is unpredictable. The “right” doesn’t have exclusivity over crazy voter logic. Between crypto bros, the Israel Palestine thing, and various other issues (like being extremely progressive to the point of seeing dems and republicans as two sides of the same coin), it’s hard to be certain who he would draw more from and in which states and how that adds up to the national EC picture.

I agree. but it’s part of a war zone. And it happens. It also happens to journalist. im not holding my breath anyone will be held accountable for breaking the rules. 🤷‍♂️

As for them leaving - I don’t think Israel cares if they all leave. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out they intentionally targeted them to scare them all out, knowing they can say “oops my bad” and get away with it (because they will, intentional or not) as for Sisko - good representation of some of the nonsense in our general electorate that creates the mess we have. Single issue voters that can never see a bigger picture need. go ahead and vote for Trump bud. It may come as a surprise to you - but it’s not shocking at all you made that post. And I don’t expect anyone to waste any effort changing your mind 😂

But that’s exactly what it is and will be. This happens. We’ve attacked our own troops before. Hanging out in a war zone isn’t to be taken lightly, and this is why. They signed up to be in a war zone. They understand the risks. Just like everyone else, who decides to not be an aid worker in a war zone. Same with journalists. doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck. It does suck. But it’s a risk you accept when you pack your **** and head into a war zone.

I guess it “get it” in the sense someone claims it looks like that and I can kinda see it i would have never thought that on my own looking at them … I think maybe people are too sensitive or too investing in finding a big deal in everything they see 🤷‍♂️

there was a day before which women’s basketball was awful to watch. Im enjoying it now. They’re very technically sound. It’s not like the nba, or even college. Crisp passing, solid shot selection, it’s enjoyable to watch. idk how the wnba is but I’m thoroughly enjoying this seasons tournament. If I were to decide to show my team (youngin’s) footage on what basketball looks like when played properly, I’d probably choose stuff from this years women’s tournament…

the silver lining is this purged competent people and replaces them with looney toons characters. so it’ll be obnoxious but I imagine they’ll be totally clueless and unable to navigate the legal system correctly to actually do anything.