The Electoral College

[Martin Hash]

The socialists are banging on Nationalism but Nationalism is good. It creates bonds among people who don't know each other. Communities need it, cities need it, states need it, and countries need it. States don't even recognize doctors, lawyers, accountants & engineers from other States, let alone a huge block of votes from dicks in NYC. States deserve to be recognized individually in the Electoral College.

[StCapps]

[Cid]

Every defense of the the EC conveniently ignores the fact that states, like Nebraska and Maine, could divy up their votes proportionally, but won't because duopoly. So sure, states should matter, but they don't, the parties do and they're holding the states hostage. Dems aren't going to make California and New York proportional and Texas won't either.

The EC is indefensible. No modern justification remotely correlates with elections from the beginning of our country, parties quickly adapted to it, and we've had no amendment to address the badly outdated system.

Mind you it was indefensible in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, which means the next time I get to argue this is actually probably 2024, at which point the parties will likely switch and the Dems will smile and shit themselves until the next time this happens to them. Mind you, I don't think the Dems would win if the EC went away, I think Republicans could easily get people to come out and vote if the heavily populated states Dems dominate weren't a winner-take-all fuckfest. Both parties are supersafe with the EC in place, and without they're just relatively safe with greater citizen participation.

[Speaker to Animals]

We should go to one electoral vote per state.

[Cid]

Pfft, just make it parliamentary and don't bother with insulting voters then.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's about federalism. The federal government should be a compromise between states, not a popular vote.

Why would the rest of America agree to become the peasants belonging to California and New York?

[Cid]

To be clear you're saying that citizens who live in New York and California can outvote other places. I'd say that's not accurate, and I think you're fucked if you don't think they are conservatives in urban areas (or as the case must be in the suburbs since you have to include suburbs to make cities as large as you think they are.)

And hey, its amazing what the peasants want from California in New York when it comes time to pay the bills.

[Speaker to Animals]

That would absolutely be the case.

Look at an election map and note the little blue islands surrounded by a sea of red. A popular vote would make those islands into city states, and the rest of the nation would live under their bootheel. Until they seceded, anyway.

It would not work. Nor would the rest of the state's ever agree to such an amendment.

Personally, I'd rather see the federal government stripped down, state government power restored, one electoral vote per state, and go back to senators being elected by state legislatures.

[Cid]

Stop looking at the maps look at the raw numbers, the damn maps paint a region red or blue regardless of the actual voters. Texas looks a lot more purple than red as California does blue.

[Speaker to Animals]

And if we went by the raw numbers, the urbanites would set themselves up as Romans, casting the rest of the nation as tribute-paying hicks who are better off being governed not by themselves.