@mattyglesias Ridley Scottโs magnum opus is definitely Gladiator, so I donโt know why youโd refer to him by those three movies.
English
posted ๐ ๐ ๐
4.8K posts
Is this really how we're referring to the director of Blade Runner, Alien, and Thelma & Louise now?
English
@mdwainwright @TrueSlazac @Brksamurai1 This holds true in big states like CA and TX, too. Why is that?
English
@posted989 @TrueSlazac @Brksamurai1 The average US state is 1/50th the size of the USA. Itโs not even remotely interesting
English
Arguing about the electoral college is a baffling experience because none of the arguments people have against the popular vote is addressed by the electoral college, it's like they don't understand how their system works
English
@mdwainwright @TrueSlazac @Brksamurai1 Interesting how even in statewide elections for governor/senate, with even more limited resources, candidates still campaign in rural areas with less people, despite not having an electoral college to guarantee their presence
English
@TrueSlazac @Brksamurai1 Resources are limited and scale is economic.
English
@ckieser13 Also Biden won the popular vote by 4 percent and millions of vote. Without an EC to suggest the election was close, the Trump admin would have absolutely no rock to go off of.
English
Even aside from the structural reasons to support the EC...a national popular vote would be a total nightmare to administer.
In 2020, instead of having crazy Trump lawsuits in like 9 states, you'd have had them absolutely everywhere.
Micah@micah_erfan
๐จ 63% of Americans support adopting a national popular vote for President.
English
@ckieser13 Thatโs a terrible argument. We shouldnโt do what is right and just because itโd be difficult to administer?
You people wouldโve supported slavery continuing to exist because โitโd be difficult to administer giving every slave their freedomโ.
English
@DerekPederson3 @eradke LMAO he really thought he did something
English
@eradke @posted989 Actually rural people have way bigger environmental footprints than urban people do.
English
@SethAbrams1 @MattBoxer94 Yeah Flanagan is not a risk + Klob probably appoints her if she loses the nomination (icl I donโt know their personal relationship so that could be complete cap).
All the others could feasibly (and in Wahls case, would probably) lose.
English
@MattBoxer94 Ok like I can understand, I donโt really agree with, but can understand your concerns over AES, Wahls, and Platner. But Flanagan? With Klob on the ballot? In a year as blue as 2026 is likely gonna be in Minessota? There is 0 risk in nominating her.
English
In 2010 and 12 the GOP blew up to 7 senate seats over bad nominees. The ppl cheering for bad nominees on the Dem side like Abdul, Wahls, Peggy and Platner better be careful what theyโre wishing for. Republicans openly want all 4 to win.
English
@davidwcann @realtonysm1th Obviously that wouldnโt even be a problem if Republican states simply joined the compact, but alas, here we are.
English
@posted989 @realtonysm1th I question statesโ commitment to NPV; I bet many would weasel out of that commitment if they thought they could (similar to Virginia trying to change its constitutional process to set its congressional districts this year).
English
Im not super passionate about this and donโt care which side anyone else takes on it, but the arguments for the EC are not actually strong at all, and most of them are just describing problems that are not even remotely solved by the EC as designed
James Surowiecki@JamesSurowiecki
There's no good civic argument for the electoral college. It was arguably necessary to ensure the ratification of the Constitution, but it's an anti-democratic device that gives some American citizens far more voting power than others, based purely on where they live.
English
@davidwcann @realtonysm1th The compact prevents states from leaving several months an election.
Also, VA only changed its congressional districts as a response to TX and other R-led states changing theirs. If this reaches 270 EVs, there would be no need to ever change state laws.
English
@SuvyBob @DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 The popular vote was not close enough to stipulate a national recount in either instance. Gore won the popular vote by half a million; thatโs not even remotely close (in terms of raw numbers; of course itโs close by percentage).
English
@posted989 @DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 2/150 years for presidential cycle is >5% chance. That's not close to literally zero. It's not likely, but it's also significant non-zero chance.
English
The arguments for the Electoral College are all basically terrible and its original purpose (so that elites could block the masses from electing a populist demagogue) is clearly a failure.
James Surowiecki@JamesSurowiecki
There's no good civic argument for the electoral college. It was arguably necessary to ensure the ratification of the Constitution, but it's an anti-democratic device that gives some American citizens far more voting power than others, based purely on where they live.
English
@SuvyBob @DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 lol well I wouldnโt say that, but: this is your view, right? I already explained in another comment why there is literally 0 chance of a FL 2000 situation happening w/ a NPV, but you did say that candidates would only campaign in major cities which is flagrantly false
Suvy@SuvyBob
@DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 There's other good arguments in favor of it, but that's the strongest one IMO. I think it's an issue is you only have politicians campaigning in NYC, LA, Miami, etc too. But that exists in any political system.
English
@posted989 @DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 You don't understand what I'msaying. You're confusing an argument I'm making for suggesting that's my view (it is not my view). Xuz I'm able to make that argument doesn't mean I agree w/that.
In the 21st century, I don't think the views of rural areas should matter much.
English
@SuvyBob @DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 Then why do Governors/Senators/other statewide electeds campaign in rural areas? By your logic, shouldnโt they only campaign in the cities of a state? Even in CA, candidates still campaign in rural/suburb areas. Why is that?
English
@posted989 @DerekPederson3 @avrilbradley23 I don't think you realize how much harder it is to campaign in rural areas than it is in cities.
It's logistically a lot easier to get around much larger populations in cities for cheaper and in less time. The further you get from cities, the harder it is to organize.
English
@lordsutch @bdquinn As opposed to just making all voters, varying across any election, equally important, across time?
English
@bdquinn *some mid-to-large states, varying quasi-randomly across time.
English
The electoral college does absolutely nothing to prevent rule by the dumbest 50%+1 of the country. It would if it were still a cabal of elites determining who should be president, but that's not how it's been since almost the very beginning.
Internet Commenter@InternetTalking
"You should be content being ruled by the dumbest 50%+1 of your country."
English
@davidwcann @realtonysm1th Thereโs a national popular vote interstate compact. If there was literally any desire from Republicans to remove the EC, it could go into effect with ease. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_โฆ
English
@realtonysm1th I donโt understand the many people shitting on the electoral college rather since thereโs no real way to change it without a massive groundswell of support to amend the constitution to change elections. And we also should contend with the increased election security issue.
English
@Just1Conserv @jeeeke2 @DerekPederson3 Cube root rule and cap it at 1000 (or any other arbitrary number).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_rootโฆ
English
@posted989 @jeeeke2 @DerekPederson3 I'm not categorically opposed to that. But we would need to set an actual number. A 1000 person Congress or even an 800 person Congress is not manageable and would produce even less than the last 5 pitiful congresses have
English
Great. Then letโs also establish a third body to protect urbanites from the tyranny of rural voters.
This is meaningless nonsense, sorry.
Mallard Duck@MallardDuck13
@DerekPederson3 Like the Senate, it protects sparsely populated rural areas from the tyranny of the majority.
English
@Just1Conserv @jeeeke2 @DerekPederson3 What about simply adding more representatives to fully and more accurately account for population?
English
@jeeeke2 @DerekPederson3 But the minimum is 1? To be against that, you would need to be okay with whole states having no representation in the House, which is so much more tyrannical than any level of "disproportionate vote value,"
English
@stanasta_1017 @MallardDuck13 @DerekPederson3 Also do you actually think asking someone what their pronouns are is as bad as slavery?
English
@posted989 @MallardDuck13 @DerekPederson3 Why don't you bitch about not one Founder ever asking anyone what their pronouns are while you're at it?
English
@stanasta_1017 @MallardDuck13 @DerekPederson3 Even more compelling evidence is the fact that the founders never foresaw electors voting based off of state popular votes, and truly intended for electors to be able to vote for their preferred candidate and not necessarily who their state backed.
English
@posted989 @MallardDuck13 @DerekPederson3 Creating that possibility was literally the whole point, unless you're still bitterly clinging to bogus lies about "selected not elected" and "Russian collusion" being the random circumstances.
English
@stanasta_1017 @MallardDuck13 @DerekPederson3 No, the random circumstances being that the states created after 1789 were bounded by arbitrary lines and other, equally arbitrary boundaries could have produced states that compiled together yielded an electoral win for Gore/Clinton.
English