• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can we please just go to a popular vote

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
raildogg said:
So you all still believe in the political system? How many more years of this nonsense will it take for even one of you guys to realize it's completely worthless and a waste of time?

If people haven't gotten over politics by now that means they'll never get over it. So keep on voting and "hoping."
Click to expand...

Feel free to go out and kick off an anarchist revolution. Let us know how you get on.

Until then, you do realise that you are part of the 'political system' yourself, right? You don't get to opt out merely by claiming you do.
 
pmv said:
Feel free to go out and kick off an anarchist revolution. Let us know how you get on.

Until then, you do realise that you are part of the 'political system' yourself, right? You don't get to opt out merely by claiming you do.
Click to expand...
Then again, when you say the anarchist revolution, that means dealing with those people as well. LOL.

As long as humanity operates at the low, selfish and greedy levels, no political system will work.
 
raildogg said:
So you all still believe in the political system? How many more years of this nonsense will it take for even one of you guys to realize it's completely worthless and a waste of time?

If people haven't gotten over politics by now that means they'll never get over it. So keep on voting and "hoping."
Click to expand...

I don't understand this post what specifically are you suggesting people should do?
 
What has long amused me is listening to the business-first crowd on the right continually frame arguments and policies in terms of money. They've moved on from the 'only property owners have a stake in the system!' schtick (some more than others maybe), but they still often act as if financial elite deserve special concessions and rights compared to the hoi polloi.

With cities accounting for something like 85% of the GDP, I find the concern for rural areas to be kinda funny. Then I consider how the same crowd incentivized the jerb creators to outsource, leaving these same rural areas struggling. Not so funny.
 
raildogg said:
When something clearly doesn't work or helps anyone, why participate in it? Is it our duty or some other nonsense?
Click to expand...

You _are_ participating in it. Do you have a job? Pay taxes? Buy stuff that returns profits to corporations? Make use of the services and benefits the 'system' makes possible? (Like roads and the police and clean(ish) air and water, and all the other things made possible by the state). Then you are participating in the political system. Just, from the sound of it, not very effectively (I don't really hold that against you, I don't get much done either, but its a bit egotistical for an individual to expect to change the world).

Even if you live in a cabin in the woods and live off the land as a hermit, you are still participating passively by not doing anything to change anything and you are still benefiting from it's historical existence (how would you even have come to be in North America if not for the political/economic system?).

Most of all, those who are most threatened by the likes of Nazis (and by Trump) don't really get the luxury of 'not participating in it'. They can't avoid it. It will come to them if they don't. (Edit - actually, why am I saying 'they'? I can't opt out either).
 
Fanatical Meat said:
As pmv said just by living here you participate. Not voting then complaining about the Gov is just foolish in my opinion
Click to expand...
I get what you and pmv are saying and I can respect that. But I have to live and do what I have to do. The voting/electing/political system is something I would rather than be a part of. And I don't complain about one particular government or the other. I've seen that none of them are helpful or solve problems. In any country for that matter. Sorry to say that and sorry to make such sweeping generalizations. But unfortunately, mankind has been conned into thinking politicians are going to solve our problems. They can't and won't. By voting for this or that guy is a tiny, tiny, tiny drop in a ocean even if there is a .1% chance that he might be genuinely doing the right thing. And at the top levels of power, that percentage drops even lower.
 
raildogg said:
I get what you and pmv are saying and I can respect that. But I have to live and do what I have to do. The voting/electing/political system is something I would rather than be a part of. And I don't complain about one particular government or the other. I've seen that none of them are helpful or solve problems. In any country for that matter. Sorry to say that and sorry to make such sweeping generalizations. But unfortunately, mankind has been conned into thinking politicians are going to solve our problems. They can't and won't. By voting for this or that guy is a tiny, tiny, tiny drop in a ocean even if there is a .1% chance that he might be genuinely doing the right thing. And at the top levels of power, that percentage drops even lower.
Click to expand...

I can accept that, I feel compelled to say a popular vote would help. I live in MA voting anything other than the Democratic Parties pick is simply a waste of time. I still vote and for President I've always voted D.
I would like to be able to say if I chose to pick another choice my vote would actually be counted toward something
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I can accept that, I feel compelled to say a popular vote would help. I live in MA voting anything other than the Democratic Parties pick is simply a waste of time. I still vote and for President I've always voted D.
I would like to be able to say if I chose to pick another choice my vote would actually be counted toward something
Click to expand...

Why would your vote mean any more in a practical sense? No matter where you live and what party you vote for your vote is such a small percentage of the overall turnout as to be meaningless. As I've said many times before people give 2000 Florida as an example of your vote mattering but even then it represented 0.2% of the margin.

Vote because you want to, because it's your duty, because it's Tuesday. Don't vote because you think it matters to the outcome.
 
kage69 said:
How about instead of trying to make it about Hillary or me, just cut to the chase and explain why a voter in WY having roughly 3 times the voice compared to a CA voter is "fine"? The presence and effects of swing states occurs regardless of who is running, can we agree on this?



I actually give you props for that, it's far more than I get out of most with admitted leanings to the right. Allow me to craft a wobbly response with a car analogy: I understand this old ride means a lot to you, that through good times and bad she's still kept moving and done her job. But that tranny bruh, I hear it. I'm not saying she's due for the compactor. I'm saying let's rebuild that transmission and keep the car going instead of ignoring it, until it fails catastrophically one day.

Look how toxic things have become. Now consider a scenario where instead of the popular being off by about 3 million, it's off by 30 million (or more). Adjusting our Constitution to fit the times has been done before and will likely need to happen again, despite how frustrating it might be for you.

Change is necessary because things that don't adapt die out. Gerrymandering needs to go, no doubt, but so does the EC.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the electoral system diminishes a CA voter relative to WY. If anything, it levels the playing field, otherwise CA, NY and TX would set the direction of the nation, and having lived in all three, I choose none of the above.

I am willing to keep the electoral college but diminish the forces that undermine it. Eliminate gerrymandering and redistrict along more equitable lines, I will let you decide what those should be. Make voting more accessible. I recognize this would mean the death of the current GOP. The current GOP is also colluding with Russians and Nazis. It deserves to die.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
I don't believe the electoral system diminishes a CA voter relative to WY. If anything, it levels the playing field, otherwise CA, NY and TX would set the direction of the nation, and having lived in all three, I choose none of the above.

I am willing to keep the electoral college but diminish the forces that undermine it. Eliminate gerrymandering and redistrict along more equitable lines, I will let you decide what those should be. Make voting more accessible. I recognize this would mean the death of the current GOP. The current GOP is also colluding with Russians and Nazis. It deserves to die.
Click to expand...

First of all, the founding fathers didn't intend for the electoral college to even out anything, that's what the senate is for and why every state has an equal voice. It makes sense that the places with the largest populations set the agenda for the country, I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, can you point to other instances in life where the voices of the minority set the agenda over the majority?

I agree with your second paragraph but I don't think the GOP should die but rather be reborn and split or rid themselves of their extremes.
 
ivwshane said:
First of all, the founding fathers didn't intend for the electoral college to even out anything, that's what the senate is for and why every state has an equal voice. It makes sense that the places with the largest populations set the agenda for the country, I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, can you point to other instances in life where the voices of the minority set the agenda over the majority?

I agree with your second paragraph but I don't think the GOP should die but rather be reborn and split or rid themselves of their extremes.
Click to expand...
That's fair. I don't particularly care for group think or the tyranny of the majority, and I've always perceived the electoral college as a wild card catalyst to force broad coalitions.

And yes, from the death of the current GOP, something perhaps more rational will emerge.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
That's fair. I don't particularly care for group think or the tyranny of the majority, and I've always perceived the electoral college as a wild card catalyst to force broad coalitions.

And yes, from the death of the current GOP, something perhaps more rational will emerge.
Click to expand...


How is first past the post by state less tyrannical than proportional representation? If the EC cannot be removed, then make it proportional within a state.


Two party system is horrible.
 
sdifox said:
Two party system is horrible.
Click to expand...
Two-party system is excellent, if the primaries are not ignored. There is also the issue of independents and third parties that undermine the two-party system. How? By stealing good selection and giving them bad reps. Sanders could have won. If he was not an outsider to the Democratic party. The Republicans/Democrats could have better primary selections. If the Independent, Green and Libertarian parties weren't segregated from the main party.

=> Republican party has factions.
=> Democrat party has factions.
These should be shown in the primaries which reflect that first election cycle that the French have.

(The two-party system is more regulated than what France has for its convoluted party system. If there is no vote draining options in the general and primary, then the two-party system is idiot proof.)
 
Last edited:
NostaSeronx said:
Two-party system is excellent, if the primaries are not ignored. There is also the issue of independents and third parties that undermine the two-party system. How? By stealing good selection and giving them bad reps. Sanders could have won if he was not an outsider to the Democratic party. The Republicans/Democrats could have better primary selections. If the Green and Libertarian parties weren't segregated from the main party.
Click to expand...

Bernie couldn't get more votes than Hillary so how could he have beaten Trump? So you are ok with California basically deciding for the others? Trump had more votes in 30 of the 50 states. Our country is based on a union of states.
 
brandonbull said:
Bernie couldn't get more votes than Hillary so how could he have beaten Trump?
Click to expand...
He could have done what Obama did in the 2008 primary. Get more super delegates than Clinton. The issue is that Sanders had to have been in the democratic party, rather than an independent.
brandonbull said:
So you are ok with California basically deciding for the others? Trump had more votes in 30 of the 50 states. Our country is based on a union of states.
Click to expand...
California is a yuge state, it is in fact the best state to judge what the actual whole of Columbia(U.S. America) wants. As it is so large, it has everything from yuge cities, to dense urban and light urban, to city rural and in the middle of no where rural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
 
raildogg said:
So you all still believe in the political system? How many more years of this nonsense will it take for even one of you guys to realize it's completely worthless and a waste of time?

If people haven't gotten over politics by now that means they'll never get over it. So keep on voting and "hoping."
Click to expand...

so, what's your plan? sit around, do nothing other than complain about everything, while reaping the benefits of free roads, mail service, telecommunication, radio and TV, safety regulations in your food, medicine and consumer goods, not being kidnapped and murdered nearly every time you walk outside at night, healthcare, air traffic safety, education, national defense, elderly care such that you aren't pushed out and dying of disease on the streets, scientific advancement and technology development, etc?

and on and on?

that fucking evil government!
 
ivwshane said:
The electoral college was designed specifically to ensure people like trump weren't elected and it failed spectacularly. It serves no purpose now as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

The EC was no match for the power of Hilary. If you want to blame the voting system put the blame where it really belongs: on a primary system that came up with the two most repugnant candidates ever to seek the office. The EC would have ensured that Trump wasn't elected if Trump was running against anyone else. When the choice is between a giant pile of shit and a giant pile of shit the EC is not why a giant pile of shit inevitably wins.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
The EC was no match for the power of Hilary. If you want to blame the voting system put the blame where it really belongs: on a primary system that came up with the two most repugnant candidates ever to seek the office. The EC would have ensured that Trump wasn't elected if Trump was running against anyone else. When the choice is between a giant pile of shit and a giant pile of shit the EC is not why a giant pile of shit inevitably wins.
Click to expand...

Point is the EC doesn't serve its purpose, plus most are appointed by the winner and others are bound to vote as the election results show.
Also imagine the chaos if last election the EC picked someone else like Jeb! or even Hillary. That would be far more damaging, we'd definitely see the end of the EC in that event.
Again the way the system works now just encourages extreme candidates and whatever crisis the EC was designed to handle is pretty irrelevant today.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
The EC was no match for the power of Hilary. If you want to blame the voting system put the blame where it really belongs: on a primary system that came up with the two most repugnant candidates ever to seek the office. The EC would have ensured that Trump wasn't elected if Trump was running against anyone else. When the choice is between a giant pile of shit and a giant pile of shit the EC is not why a giant pile of shit inevitably wins.
Click to expand...

Clinton won by millions of votes; it was not particularly close in that respect. If you genuinely think the electoral college would overturn ANYONE'S election in the modern age I have a bridge to sell you. If you didn't think that the EC would overturn the results and refuse to elect Trump then the EC was the only reason he won.
 
NostaSeronx said:
He could have done what Obama did in the 2008 primary. Get more super delegates than Clinton. The issue is that Sanders had to have been in the democratic party, rather than an independent.California is a yuge state, it is in fact the best state to judge what the actual whole of Columbia(U.S. America) wants. As it is so large, it has everything from yuge cities, to dense urban and light urban, to city rural and in the middle of no where rural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
Click to expand...

He was handled with silk gloves and still couldn't win. In the general election all of his past support for the Soviet Union, Castro, Chavez, the fact that he chose the Soviet Union as the place to go for his honeymoon and so on would have been brought up along with a thousand other things and he wouldn't have won neither the popular vote nor the electorate.

In the US elections are mainly popularity contests instead of real world policies to do something. Just be a Christian and full of shit and you get people who really don't know better to vote for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top