Can we please just go to a popular vote

[fskimospy]

Let's let states test this out and see the results.

States don't have many tax breaks/deductions that the people who aren't voting about will care about. Much better to just do it at the federal level.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No way small states voluntarily give up the advantages EC gives them.

Maybe, use the pain point to voters. Do you like the perpetual barrage of political ads interrupting football? Reduce ads by supporting this.

 

[ch33zw1z]

States don't have many tax breaks/deductions that the people who aren't voting about will care about. Much better to just do it at the federal level.

Once every four years, tough sell.

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe its time to redistrict the states

This.

I still, perhaps stubbornly, think the EC offers necessary protections for small states and communities that are generally hurt by the policies that benefit large metro areas, even if the results of the EC tend to lead to disasters every 10 or so years....the country tends to find ways to heal itself. Maybe Trump really does need to be the slap in the face that the GOP and the rest of the republic needed to realize it's time to let the adults back in the room and get the children (Tea Party, "Freedom Cockus," etc) back to their daycare and out of everyone's business.

 

[JockoJohnson]

1) Fine people who don't vote
2) Change to a preference-based voting system
3) Have a small test on the economic policies of each party and their respective effects on groups. Then weigh each vote based on their understanding.

That way your average Trumptard gets their say and it's weighted fairly - that is their votes are worth nothing unless they wisen the fsck up.

You myopic retard...what do you think happens to the votes of minorities then (those that aren't as educated or enlightened as yourself)? They tend to vote Democrat too. You want their vote to count for less?

 

[greatnoob]

Like I said in my post make it a requirement to get certain tax breaks. Either provide proof of voting or a reason why you couldn't. That will dramatically increase voter turnout without disenfranchising people.

More red tape and money to appeal a monetary fine?

I'm more inclined with a tax credit for voting. States could provide this for their own elections as well, so people would get the credit more often.

But wouldn't this also only apply if you itemize deductions?

That sounds like a much better way of dealing with it. I'm surprised the EC is still a thing after this long. How do you go about changing it? Is that up to citizens?

 

[fskimospy]

Once every four years, tough sell.

Why?

 

[greatnoob]

You myopic retard...what do you think happens to the votes of minorities then? They tend to vote Democrat too. You want their vote to count for less?

Relax. I think anybody dumb enough to throw their votes towards a party because of buzz words and catch phrases does not deserve to have equal voting parity to informed folks, regardless of who they are.

 

[fskimospy]

That sounds like a much better way of dealing with it. I'm surprised the EC is still a thing after this long. How do you go about changing it? Is that up to citizens?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Get your state to pass it! It effectively eliminates the EC without a constitutional amendment. Problem is that you're almost certainly going to need full Democratic control of state government to pass it because Republicans aren't idiots. They know the EC has given them at least 2 presidential elections they would have lost otherwise and maybe 3 if you count the incumbency advantage as covering the spread in 2004.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why?

People. EC, swing states. Push it at a state level also so people see it more often, and hope it can help drown the fringe nutters flocking to swing states.

But how many of these voters will actually see some kind of benefit? What value are you thinking?

 

[ch33zw1z]

That sounds like a much better way of dealing with it. I'm surprised the EC is still a thing after this long. How do you go about changing it? Is that up to citizens?

I don't know, but up for some learnin'

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Get your state to pass it! It effectively eliminates the EC without a constitutional amendment. Problem is that you're almost certainly going to need full Democratic control of state government to pass it because Republicans aren't idiots. They know the EC has given them at least 2 presidential elections they would have lost otherwise and maybe 3 if you count the incumbency advantage as covering the spread in 2004.

Thanks for link.

 

[dank69]

Just do away with voting and appoint Trump as king. That way we can be ruled by his spawn if technology doesn't bless us with immortality before we lose our glorious leader.

 

[fskimospy]

People. EC, swing states. Push it at a state level also so people see it more often, and hope it can help drown the fringe nutters flocking to swing states.

But how many of these voters will actually see some kind of benefit? What value are you thinking?

I mean the main problem with voting is that it's mostly economically irrational. Your chances of influencing the election are minuscule and especially in poorer areas voting usually means a significant time investment. I think we should 1) take strong steps to make voting easier (as far as I'm concerned everyone should vote absentee) and 2) provide incentives to make people bother to vote. Otherwise we're basically asking people to behave irrationally out of a sense of civic duty, it's no wonder it doesn't work that well.

 

[kage69]

The system is doing just fine.

False.

Voters in one state having triple the voting power of those in another state means things are not fine. When a demented demagogue, so antithetical to the constitution he's supposed to be protecting, can receive less support to the tune of 3 million and still win, the system is far from fine.

Let's address the bullshit of partisan redistricting and gerrymandering while we're at it. Voters should be selecting the politicians. Allowing politicians to select the voters just allows partisans to shield themselves from the will of voters. gop.txt

 

[ch33zw1z]

I mean the main problem with voting is that it's mostly economically irrational. Your chances of influencing the election are minuscule and especially in poorer areas voting usually means a significant time investment. I think we should 1) take strong steps to make voting easier (as far as I'm concerned everyone should vote absentee) and 2) provide incentives to make people bother to vote. Otherwise we're basically asking people to behave irrationally out of a sense of civic duty, it's no wonder it doesn't work that well.

I agree with both 1 and 2, we just have some different opinions about incentives for voters.

What kind of tax incentive are you thinking? Is there an amount you have in mind?

 

[bshole]

I mean the main problem with voting is that it's mostly economically irrational. Your chances of influencing the election are minuscule and especially in poorer areas voting usually means a significant time investment. I think we should 1) take strong steps to make voting easier (as far as I'm concerned everyone should vote absentee) and 2) provide incentives to make people bother to vote. Otherwise we're basically asking people to behave irrationally out of a sense of civic duty, it's no wonder it doesn't work that well.

Disagree. The problem is that in the end, your vote and the votes of people like you do not matter. If you want to effect our government, get yourself a fortune of several billion dollars and start spreading it around. Citizen's United CODIFIED this into our laws and was the death knell of a truly representative government. We are now living with the illusion of a representative government.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

[Sunburn74]

I've always kind of wondered if a system of random but secret representation in government (secret in the way say a grand jury is secret or jury discussions in a case are secret or much military function and operations are classified ) is more favorable to our current process of open selection. Ie if congressmen were elected at random from eligible people in society (we'll say all adult citizens in example with a random number generator) but voted in secret or classified fashion, had identities essentially kept in secret/highly classified during their term, and served just one or two terms would that be more favorable than our current system of open representation?

 

[Starbuck1975]

False.

Voters in one state having triple the voting power of those in another state means things are not fine. When a demented demagogue, so antithetical to the constitution he's supposed to be protecting, can receive less support to the tune of 3 million and still win, the system is far from fine.

Let's address the bullshit of partisan redistricting and gerrymandering while we're at it. Voters should be selecting the politicians. Allowing politicians to select the voters just allows partisans to shield themselves from the will of voters. gop.txt

It's not the fault of the system that Clinton campaigned for the wrong objective. The popular vote argument remains irrelevant despite how frustrating it might be for you.

I am not ready to trash a historically functioning system because of one outlier, especially one surrounded by unprecedented shenanigans.

We should focus on how the political parties game the system rather than change the system itself.

 

[soulcougher73]

Even that doesn't work when some states have about 145K people per electoral vote while others have 500K people per EC vote. Representation should be proportional to population and were it truly proportional than you don't need the EC. Just puts you back to popular vote.

This man gets its 🙂

 

[1sikbITCH]

Maybe its time to redistrict the states

Just two big ones: Just split the country into East and West, divvy up the islands and Alaska between them. We did this in the Middle East and it worked perfectly.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yup. No more of that shit. For president who is the president of all of us 1 person 1 equal vote. There is nothing special about living in a rural state that makes them "more" equal than others.

Also make Election Day a federal holiday and we should be able to keep the minority party the minority party.

the whole point of the electoral college is (was) to prevent the californias from bullying the wisconsins and other small states (granted neither was a state at the time of the constitution...you get my point).

but i absolutely agree that election day should be a national holiday. there is no reason why people should have to choose between civic participation and work.

 

[kage69]

It's not the fault of the system that Clinton campaigned for the wrong objective. The popular vote argument remains irrelevant despite how frustrating it might be for you. I am not ready to trash a historically functioning system because of one outlier, especially one surrounded by unprecedented shenanigans.

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?

We should focus on how the political parties game the system rather than change the system itself.

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.

 

[pmv]

the whole point of the electoral college is (was) to prevent the californias from bullying the wisconsins and other small states (granted neither was a state at the time of the constitution...you get my point).

but i absolutely agree that election day should be a national holiday. there is no reason why people should have to choose between civic participation and work.

I still don't understand this justification. Why shouldn't larger states have proportionally more say than small ones?

The argument that that means larger states can 'bully' smaller ones could be applied to any number of other demographic categories. Some age-groups have far more people in them than others, would the same logic not mean you give the very elderly voters more weight, in case they get bullied by the demographic bulge of the middle-aged? Why not do the same by race? More votes for racial minorities, following the same logic. More votes for gay voters as they are otherwise in danger of being bullied by the more numerous heterosexuals.

What's so special about geographic location as a trait that requires people to be treated as blocs rather than individuals?

Also, a possible problem with the holiday idea - you can't have _everyone_ on holiday on the same day, some people provide essential services. Hence such a holiday could perhaps introduce a bias towards voters who are able to actually take that day off.

 

[raildogg]

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."