• 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.

Trump wins Iowa - is anyone surprised?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NWRMidnight said:
Really, so you belive Texas, Florida, the big red states would have no say in the election? You do realize that the only thing the electoral collage does is allows the minority to rule. That's it.. does nothing else. Why should the minority rule when it goes against the majority?
Click to expand...
It’s funny how his argument implicitly accepts that Republicans can’t win elections in a democracy if it requires getting the most votes.
 
JD50 said:
People in those red states would get just as much of a say in the election as every other person in this country. One person one vote, why does that upset you? There's millions of Republicans in blue states who don't get a say in the election and haven't in decades, their votes essentially go in the trash.
Click to expand...
Because he thinks equality where everyone’s vote counts the same is oppression. He doesn’t want the GOP to change policy preferences to get more people to vote Republican, he wants the system to force people to accept them despite their unpopularity.

Really though, he just likes the outcomes the electoral college gives him and so he’s inventing reasons to defend it. If it suddenly flipped so Democrats were winning the presidency with a minority of votes his opinion would switch in a second.
 
pmv said:
Why is it "fundamental"? It's a choice, and clearly a very poor one.
Click to expand...
Because the United States is exactly that, a union of fifty states. Each state gets representation in the federal government, each state has a say in who the president will be. Dump the EC and the low population states have no say in who's president. The same thing happens in the senate, each state gets two, doesn't matter what the population is.
It's how the republic was set up, and it's worked for near 250 years. That's a good system. It's produced what's arguably the most successful nation on the planet.
I know a lot of people want a more democratic system, I don't , I like the one we have. Democracy is based on the idea that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person, I've never seen any evidence of that.
 
Greenman said:
Because the United States is exactly that, a union of fifty states. Each state gets representation in the federal government, each state has a say in who the president will be. Dump the EC and the low population states have no say in who's president. The same thing happens in the senate, each state gets two, doesn't matter what the population is.
It's how the republic was set up, and it's worked for near 250 years. That's a good system. It's produced what's arguably the most successful nation on the planet.
Click to expand...
Haha - called it. Low population states have no say in who is president now. Really, about 44 of the 50 states have effectively no say. The only states that have a say in who is president are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona.

If you don’t think this is true let me know the last time you saw a presidential candidate campaigning in Mississippi. They completely ignore the state because it’s irrelevant. A popular vote would make candidates pay attention to all 50 states and make them all count.
Greenman said:
I know a lot of people want a more democratic system, I don't , I like the one we have. Democracy is based on the idea that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person, I've never seen any evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Democracies consistently produce better results for their populations than autocracies so this is a remarkable claim. It flies in the face of centuries of massive evidence.
 
Greenman said:
I know a lot of people want a more democratic system, I don't , I like the one we have. Democracy is based on the idea that a million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person, I've never seen any evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you just stick with an absolute monarchy then? What was the point of all that revolting?
 
Greenman said:
Because the United States is exactly that, a union of fifty states. Each state gets representation in the federal government, each state has a say in who the president will be. Dump the EC and the low population states have no say in who's president. The same thing happens in the senate, each state gets two, doesn't matter what the population is.
Click to expand...

I know, and the Senate is another massive problem. That pretence that the nation is a voluntary union of essentially independent states is the source of most of the dysfunction.

In no meaningful sense are the "states" potentially independent nations that have to be mollycoddled to persuade them to voluntarily stay in the union. Maybe that excuse works for the EU (though even there I think it is shaping up to be a problem in the long run) but it clearly makes no sense in the US context.
 
Thump553 said:
Not only that, but the votes aren't secret and if you vote wrong you will be browbeat by your fellow party comrades to vote correctly on the next ballot.

The caucus system is designed to maintain party control by the faithful minority of active party members. It is an abomination.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think the party diehards should be the people selecting the party's candidates.
 
Greenman said:
Not the way the system was designed, and not the way it operates. You want to change it because you're often unhappy with the results and want to be sure those stupid red states don't get a say in the elections. The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Click to expand...
Big words from someone who is constitutionally worth 9 tenths of a voter from Montana.
 
My favorite part is the right accuses the left of having TDS while they are the frogs in the pot of water where the temperature is being turned up 1 deg at a time

The rest of us see it. But, we have the problem??
 
Greenman said:
Not the way the system was designed, and not the way it operates. You want to change it because you're often unhappy with the results and want to be sure those stupid red states don't get a say in the elections. The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Click to expand...
If we end political gerrymandering a large part of the EC problem will self correct.

No, gerrymandering in its current form was not part of the design.

The problems with the EC was foreseen even before. Bush v Gore and was predicted then the negative outcome. We also need to expand the House and Senate to reflect today’s population. No way a state with a population of 300K should have the same representation as 12M

What you are advocating for is apartheid.
 
Last edited:
HomerJS said:
If we end political gerrymandering a large part of the EC problem will self correct.

No, gerrymandering in its current form was not part of the design
Click to expand...
How would ending gerrymandering help?

That being said, people also forget that parties strategically added states to get more senators and electoral college votes. This is the entire reason there is one California and two Dakotas.

This is why we should split California into three or four states - lots of extra senators and EC votes for the democrats. I imagine Greenman would consider that terribly unfair though because what he really cares about is Republicans winning.
 
fskimospy said:
M

If I’m Haley I would hang on and try to wait it out until Trump is convicted of one or more crimes, which is all but certain.
Click to expand...
2/3rds of the Iowa caucus voters said conviction won’t affect their decision November. So unless the party is willing to hold him accountable, clinging on does nothing
 
HomerJS said:
If we end political gerrymandering a large part of the EC problem will self correct.

No, gerrymandering in its current form was not part of the design
Click to expand...
The EC and Senate are gerrymanders written into the Constitution. The purpose was to protect slavery. The slavers lost a few years back so it is well past time to jettison both the EC and the Senate.
 
eelw said:
2/3rds of the Iowa caucus voters said conviction won’t affect their decision November. So unless the party is willing to hold him accountable, clinging on does nothing
Click to expand...
If that number is accurate it means Trump has zero chance of winning in November and so his entire campaign is doomed. Smart to stick around and see if that’s the case.
 
eelw said:
2/3rds of the Iowa caucus voters said conviction won’t affect their decision November. So unless the party is willing to hold him accountable, clinging on does nothing
Click to expand...

GOP caucus voters who show up in that weather are going to be the most hardcore slice of the party. It's possible, though I still think fairly unlikely, that a conviction could derail him.

What that 1/3rd number really says is potentially doom for the general election. Even if it's off by a large margin.
 
K1052 said:
GOP caucus voters who show up in that weather are going to be the most hardcore slice of the party. It's possible, though I still think fairly unlikely, that a conviction could derail him.

What that 1/3rd number really says is potentially doom for the general election. Even if it's off by a large margin.
Click to expand...
Yes, if even 10% of Republicans vote for Biden or even just stay home due to a conviction Trump has no viable path to victory.

Maybe they nominate him anyway and cross their fingers that it’s not true, but if I were Haley that’s how I would frame it.
 
I also have to say that the Democrats flushing the Iowa caucuses down the toilet was a correct and commendable decision. The whole thing sucks and I don't need the entire political press of the country to follow around people who are going to get 5% of that vote.
 
fskimospy said:
Yes, if even 10% of Republicans vote for Biden or even just stay home due to a conviction Trump has no viable path to victory.

Maybe they nominate him anyway and cross their fingers that it’s not true, but if I were Haley that’s how I would frame it.
Click to expand...

I think there are just too many MAGAs and the party hasn't shown a willingness to buck them no matter what. Haley might also have to decide if she wants the VP slot (of course she does). Flipping on Tump if convicted would probably excessively stain her as a turncoat to be a viable alternative.
 
K1052 said:
I also have to say that the Democrats flushing the Iowa caucuses down the toilet was a correct and commendable decision. The whole thing sucks and I don't need the entire political press of the country to follow around people who are going to get 5% of that vote.
Click to expand...

seriously. that entire state has way too much power in this country as it is with the stacked Senate catering to tiny regressive states, the EC advantage they have per voter, and because the House has been capped, is over-represented there too.

Iowa, a stain on decency and our democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top