Why vote in the US for president?
- Thread starter Wattzzup
- Start date
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
Who’s going to contest it?
Gorillabilly
Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter. Whoever loses.
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
I’m trump loses. Trump will be the only one complaining. If Biden loses it my be the end of the world.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
It will go over like a thud after a couple hundred mentally deficient domestic terrorists pop off and realize nobody is following them and they will melt back into their parents suburban homes and secretly be happy when Obamacare is expanded to all 100% of the population and they can access affordable health insurance.
I think of it like the white power crowd being like Will Farrell trying to get people to streak in the movie 'Old School'.
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
I never understood the opposition to that. I wonder what percentage of our defense budget would we have to cut in order to make that happen.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No offense intended. I posted the 538 analysis to reinforce you point that the electoral college makes this election close when it should be almost a done deal.
You are right of course. The electoral college never was about fairness and I hope its days are numbered.
This is how we can end the stranglehold small states have on the election of the president through the EC.
National Popular Vote
State status: AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50...
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
yea I assumed. 4,8,9 even 12 is sad. It’s such an easy solution to just switch to popular vote. There has to be a reason it is not being done. Do you think that without the electoral college we see more terms in a row by one party?No offense intended. I posted the 538 analysis to reinforce you point that the electoral college makes this election close when it should be almost a done deal.
You are right of course. The electoral college never was about fairness and I hope its days are numbered.
This is how we can end the stranglehold small states have on the election of the president through the EC.
National Popular Vote
State status: AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50...www.nationalpopularvote.com
another words is it used for balance?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Trump himself said that in a fair election, Republicans will never win a presidential race going forward.
All I want is that my vote counts the same as everybody else. Trump won in 2016 even though he received 46% of the vote compared to 48% for Clinton. Biden leads Trump by 8% to 12% margins in polls right now. It shouldn't even be close. But as the 538 analysis shows, the election hangs in the balance depending on what just few states do.
Also, as you say, living in a safe state for one party or the other reduces the value of their vote. It affects turnout too.
Voter Turnout Is Substantially Higher in Battleground States than Spectator States
Voter turnout was 11% higher in 2016 in the dozen closely divided presidential battleground states compared to the rest of the country, as shown on the graph below. In 2012, voter turnout was 16% higher in the dozen closely divided presidential battleground states compared to the rest of the...
Voter turnout was 11% higher in 2016, and 16% higher in 2012, in the dozen closely divided presidential battleground states compared to the rest of the country. In 2008, voter turnout was 9% higher in the 14 closely divided presidential battleground states compared to the rest of the country.
The reason for lower voter turnout in the spectator states is that many voters realize that their vote really does not matter in the presidential race.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
can you?
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
Is there any other country that does the silly electoral college thing?
Its truly strange .
Its truly strange .
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
Not that I’m aware of.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I think it has a lot to do with the legacy of England ruling us and giving land as rewards. All the rich people knew that their land being theirs is why they were rich, and wanted to be sure to have a impact on the land that they own. A lot of our government is set up with checks and balances because no group trusts the 'other' enough to give them more power than they have.
The states hold a lot of the power in their boundaries, one of them is their 2 senators, giving their state (land) no matter how populated an equal say in the federal government.
The (Peoples') house is set up to be the only truly democratic federal level election, because it is districts that people live in that decide the winner. Which is why gerrymandering matters, the Republicans used the 'Tea Party' stuff in 2010 to make a lot of states red and they drew the voting boundaries in a way that has kept them in power until 2018 when Trump ruined everything for them by being him and outing every scam he hears about. Oh, and Trump is screwing with the census this year to screw the minority cities into less representation for the next decade. Kind of a pattern with the current Republicans.
The presidency boils down to the rich people who were needed to fund the military and feed the soldiers and support the new nation did not trust the masses enough to give them a Trump and the poor people were sick of having kings and did not want to give a future Trump from conning enough people to give him too much power, which is why there are the electors in place.
They did not have enough foresight to imagine internet warfare allowing bad actors to have more impact in everyone's lives than real people in real life have.
BTW by land here I don't mean nice suburban plot).
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think snap elections are strange.
But agree that electoral college is an archaic institution. Like snap elections, they are tools that people in power use to distort the democratic process in order to stay in power. I don't know about snap elections but I do know that the minority US leadership currently in power are less and less inclined to honor the concept of majority rule.
growsince79
Member
It would require a constitutional amendment. Never gonna happen.
growsince79
Member
Let's just do like the Soviet Union did. Break up and make each state their own country.
mysunnyboy
Well-Known Member
That came from Hillary, part of her dnc speech
doublejj
Well-Known Member
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?
The justices’ ruling on faithless electors could indirectly help those who want to circumvent the Electoral College entirely.
It also raises some broader questions about the future of the Electoral College, and, in particular, about the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes would agree to award their electors to whichever presidential candidate received the most votes nationwide. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, with 196 electoral votes among them, have signed on, but their commitment will not take effect unless enough states join them to reach 270.
Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court? (Published 2020)
The justices’ ruling on faithless electors could indirectly help those who want to circumvent the Electoral College entirely.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yep, it sure did.Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?
The justices’ ruling on faithless electors could indirectly help those who want to circumvent the Electoral College entirely.
It also raises some broader questions about the future of the Electoral College, and, in particular, about the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes would agree to award their electors to whichever presidential candidate received the most votes nationwide. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, with 196 electoral votes among them, have signed on, but their commitment will not take effect unless enough states join them to reach 270.
Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court? (Published 2020)
The justices’ ruling on faithless electors could indirectly help those who want to circumvent the Electoral College entirely.www.nytimes.com
196 electoral college votes are committed to the National Popular Vote interstate agreement. 74 more to go and that archaic remnant of the early days of the Republic will be done for.