Tories 1 Labour 0

[Gob]

Basically I'm saying that the Electoral Commission serves a purpose, which is to prevent big states from choosing the President regardless of anyone else's votes.

A bit stupid that. Why not let every elector in the country have a vote, and the person (pale, male, stale,) who gets the most votes, wins? Or is that too complex? On the other hand, you could have a huge dog and pony show, with $$billions wasted, hours and hours of time used up, and still end up with the likes of Trump, Chimpy Bush, or Sleepy Joe.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Basically I'm saying that the Electoral Commission serves a purpose, which is to prevent big states from choosing the President regardless of anyone else's votes.

A bit stupid that. Why not let every elector in the country have a vote, and the person (pale, male, stale,) who gets the most votes, wins? Or is that too complex? On the other hand, you could have a huge dog and pony show, with $$billions wasted, hours and hours of time used up, and still end up with the likes of Trump, Chimpy Bush, or Sleepy Joe.

You've learned nothing from this discussion. And if there had been no Electoral College, the dog and pony show would be exactly the same if not bigger. I wish there was a way to limit spending by politicians, by PACS and a method to ban TV adverting - but

[BoSoxGal]

I looked up a translation of that phrase and I’m not entirely sure how it fits with your preceding sentence.

But in any case, it’s entirely possible to limit spending and the time frames for campaigning, many free nations have done so including, as I recall, the UK.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/0 ... ubling-16/

The last election cycle in the USA wasted 14.4 BILLION in treasure that could have fed and educated a lot of hungry at risk kids. I have no doubt that 2022 will be an even bigger waste, it is truly obscene how corrupted our political system is nowadays.

Maybe we deserve to fall to fascism.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per Meade:

In other areas (House and Senate), the big states have greater strength than small ones.

Well they do in the house - seats per state are apportioned by population although of course that leads to imbalance: North Dakota has 779,702 population for its single seat; while their slightly more populous cousins in South Dakota have 887,770 population for its single seat. Wyoming's one seat takes care of 557,719 Wyomians; but Idaho's 1,841,377 people get them only two seats at 920,688 apiece. There is not much you can do about that sort of imbalance if congressional seats have to stay within a state and not cross borders.

But that is simply not the case in the Senate: 2 senators for each state regardless of population. California with its 39 million has the same number of senators as lowly (in population terms) Wyoming. Senate has the task of 'advice and consent' on appointments both to the Executive branch and to the judiciary. The Senate imbalance was seen at its clearest during the confirmation of Trump's nominee to Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. Senators representing 56% of the population voted against him and those representing 44% voted for him. And he was confirmed.

I do not think that the big states are bullying the small states in any way.

[BoSoxGal]

No, of course they are not. The small population states ARE bullying the big population states, and they are LOVING it!

It’s quite obvious in the extremely toxic political environment in this country that has been developing since 1994. The willfully ignorant and apparently quite hateful minority in the red(neck) states are delighting at the prospect of taking back Congress and as the Wisconsin GOP gubernatorial candidate just declared, establishing a minority rule which will never fall again because they will also run elections.

And they can’t wait to pass nationwide bans on being LGBTQIA, bans on using or not using your uterus according to your own inclination, on teaching all the ugly bits of American history, on having the freedom to raise your kids as you see fit, etc. The majority of Americans support none of these policies but will be enslaved to them by the minority if things go the way they are looking to go next Tuesday.

Get ready to kiss America as we know it farewell for all time.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In other areas (House and Senate), the big states have greater strength than small ones.

That was careless of me. I'd correctly commented earlier on the CA House strength (which also means 1 Elector for each House district) - knowing full well that the Senate is 2. And here I go and add the Senate for no apparent reason. Sorry about that. Brain fart.

BSG - all we can do is vote and join the struggle. Haven't enjoyed a good struggle since the late 60s and early 70s (Vietnam and the Post Office strike in the UK)

[Bicycle Bill]

I looked up a translation of that phrase and I’m not entirely sure how it fits with your preceding sentence.

My translation (from the Polish) comes out be "I cannot".  Restate the previous phrase slightly — " I wish there was a way to limit spending by politicians, by PACS and a method to ban TV adverting - but ... " — changing "there was" to "I could find", and it fits perfectly.

-"BB"-

[datsunaholic]

The bigger states have the most influence in the Electoral College. The whinging that goes on about the EC only comes up when liberals don't like the result.

The bigger States have more influence only because they happen to have more population. But they still have less influence than they should have. Middle-population States also have less influence than they should have. It' s the small population States that have a disproportionate amount of influence. Not only in the electoral college but to an extreme in the Senate. A voter in Wyoming has 68 TIMES the influence as a voter in California when it comes to the Senate .

I guarantee you Conservatives would bitch about the EC if THEY won the Popular vote and lost the EC. The ONLY people that like the EC are the ones who gain undeserved power from it.

People seem enamored of the idea of "winner takes all" on a national level while decrying it at a local level.

Who? The only people I hear decrying Winner take All at the local level are usually Conservatives in Liberal States. Mainly by expressing how they want to split/secede from that particular state or county. Those same Conservatives absolutely want the EC to remain the same because it gives them control even as the minority power. It's the only way the last 2 Republican presidents got elected (yes I know GWB won the popular vote in 2004 but that was only because he was the incumbent).

The EC is a relic that has long outlived its purpose. It should have been banished along with slavery in the 19th century. There are ways to fix it, but for those fixes to work every State would have to get on board (or at least every State with more than 3 EC votes).

[Econoline]

Basically I'm saying that the Electoral Commission serves a purpose, which is to prevent big states from choosing the President regardless of anyone else's votes. As to whether that's a purpose that should continue, it is in the hands of the 50 states as to HOW they select the Electors.

In other areas [...], the big states have greater strength than small ones. California has the most of all and its influence and that of its voters is heftier than any other state. I don't complain about that.

The bigger states have the most influence in the Electoral College.

As datsunaholic points out, the only reason for that is the fact that the "bigger" (i.e., more populous) states have—DUH!—more people voting. It boils down to whether actual flesh-and-blood human beings should have a voice in electing the POTUS, or should only much more abstract, artificial and theoretical beings called "states" have a voice. I think that if there were any other large demographic (other than the "left coast" or the "liberals") whose voting power was thought to need a "filter" simply because there are a large number of them, the unfairness of that view would be obvious.

(Oh, and datsunaholic is also right about this: "It' s the small population States that have a disproportionate amount of influence. Not only in the electoral college but to an extreme in the Senate. A voter in Wyoming has 68 TIMES the influence as a voter in California when it comes to the Senate.")

The whinging that goes on about the EC only comes up when liberals those who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote don't like the result. (Perhaps if you could show an example of conservatives or Republicans conceding a presidential election after winning the popular vote, I might be inclined to reconsider your claim that it's only liberals who do this.)

I remain undecided as to whether every vote should count equally for the Presidency.

That's really the crux of the problem, isn't it? I can only hope that you'll think long and hard on it...and decide wisely.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per Meade:

The bigger states have the most influence in the Electoral College. The whinging that goes on about the EC only comes up when liberals don't like the result.

Doesn't seem like 22 years ago: but in 2000 there was a real possibility, based on the polls, that Gore might win the EC and lose the popular vote. This was, IIRC, a week or two before the election. The pretty boys and girls at Fox News were actively discussing this, and the unmitigated gall that would be shown by Gore if he indeed were to claim the Presidency in such an obviously undeserved fashion.

Just guessing here: but I'm pretty sure Fox did not repeat that discussion after the election.

[MajGenl.Meade]

People seem enamored of the idea of "winner takes all" on a national level while decrying it at a local level.

Who? The only people I hear decrying Winner take All at the local level are usually Conservatives in Liberal States.

I thought it was obvious. It's objectionable that the popular vote winner in each state wins all that state's Electoral votes. We don't like THAT "winner takes all" idea. But extend winner takes all across the entire nation, and THAT is OK.

It's an observation - and a true one - no need to argue it. Except I think at least one person might say it's bollocks and then go on to admit "well yes it's true . . ."

I'm not against reforming the way in which Electors are allocated - that's a State's Rights issue. But I don't want the EC to be abolished - not that it will be. An Amendment is unlikely in the extreme and unnecessary if National popular vote is figured in proportionately.

[Crackpot]

There doesn’t need to be an amendment just an agreement by the majority of the electoral votes

[Crackpot]

https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY

[MajGenl.Meade]

There doesn’t need to be an amendment just an agreement by the majority of the electoral votes

An agreement to do what? All go home?

[Crackpot]

Watch the video bozo.

[Gob]

You've learned nothing from this discussion. And if there had been no Electoral College, the dog and pony show would be exactly the same if not bigger. I

Yes, your elections would still be based on obscene spending, but "one person one vote" would surely be better, and more fair, than this incredibly stupid "electoral college" farce? You may even get a woman president from it!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Watch the video bozo.

Oh, I thought you were bringing up something new, not something that BSG linked to ages ago. I consider it a possible solution to settle the issue. That was ages ago too. Sorry, I bypassed the video at first. Watched it just now.

I remain undecided as to whether every vote should count equally for the Presidency. That is, I tend to side with the idea that some kind of filter is a good idea. However, changing the composition of the EC by allocating Electors (proportionately) according to the national number of votes might be the best approach

And I also note that the video raises one objection (though it doesn't really care). What's going to happen in those states that voted for person B only to have person A imposed on them because California has more people in it? (I know, I know, I know, I know, I know*). But it's a FACT that HRC lost the national popular vote outside California. What makes us believe that one dictatorship will be more acceptable overall than another? I'm not sure it cures the problem - but . . . worth a try?

*the collective decision of 50 states is surely better than the collective decision of 49 states.

[Bicycle Bill]

What's going to happen in those states that voted for person B only to have person A imposed on them because California has more people in it? (I know, I know, I know, I know, I know*). But it's a FACT that HRC lost the national popular vote outside California. What makes us believe that one dictatorship will be more acceptable overall than another?

Because of this line, which you yourself appended as a footnote:

*the collective decision of 50 states is surely better than the collective decision of 49 states.

(and if I could make it flash or blink to drive the point home even further, I would!)

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

**the collective decision of 50 states is surely better than the collective decision of 49 states.

*the collective decision of 136,669,276 voters is surely better than the collective decision of 122,487,691 voters.

[MajGenl.Meade]

When Econo and BB get together