If electoral college was ended, could the republicans EVER win another election?

[truckboattruck]

30 years of mass illegal immigration have given sanctuary cities more voting power than they deserve

if you disenfranchise suburban and rural america, you do so at the cost of your most valuable population

if 2 people vote in the city to make 1 rural person pay for their welfare, the 1 will simply stop producing
thats why socialism is worthless

[Daerio]

Hey guys, token Libertarian here. Who gave the government the right to deny marriages in the first place? There should just be a form you file that notifies them it happened, and how you will be adjusting your tax returns.

Also, gay marriage is a legal issue, not a moral issue. At least, not in the spectrum of government action. Gay people will exist either way. Gay marriage just extends the legal marriage rights to the couple.

Yes, pretty much every bureaucratic endeavor surrounding marriage is insane. Getting permission to get married from the government, getting permission to get divorced from the government. The lawyers and fees involved. The year of being separated.

Who argues that this is the best way to handle things, truly?

How about an overhaul for government in marriage, rather than fighting for gay people to be included as well?

[Citizen T]

Hey guys, token Libertarian here. Who gave the government the right to deny marriages in the first place? There should just be a form you file that notifies them it happened, and how you will be adjusting your tax returns.

Also, gay marriage is a legal issue, not a moral issue. At least, not in the spectrum of government action. Gay people will exist either way. Gay marriage just extends the legal marriage rights to the couple.

This is exactly right! And since the federal government does not have this power the power is left to the States.

[Zenfoldor]

Its amazing to me that even when your stooge wins you still just blatantly lie.

So wait a sec. The democrats don't want amnesty and open boarders? Call me a low info voter but I thought that was your whole platform, along with feels and whatnot.

[Tijuana]

Yes, pretty much every bureaucratic endeavor surrounding marriage is insane. Getting permission to get married from the government, getting permission to get divorced from the government. The lawyers and fees involved. The year of being separated.

Who argues that this is the best way to handle things, truly?

How about an overhaul for government in marriage, rather than fighting for gay people to be included as well?

I could not have said it better myself.

- - - Updated - - -

So wait a sec. The democrats don't want amnesty and open boarders? Call me a low info voter but I thought that was your whole platform, along with feels and whatnot.

It gets confusing for Democrat voters and Republican voters want vs what their politicians want. Democrat politicians want the votes of illegal immigrants, since they are more likely to be poor than other immigrants. Republican politicians know their donors want endless poor people they can pay low wages to. It starts getting really murky when they try to justify their positions, and then you look close to compare what they say vs what they do.

[mittacc]

*Quotient

/10char

Quotient == Quota.

Do you even translate?

[Citizen T]

Now compare this to a map of the election-results.

These types of comparisons are EXTREMELY disingenuous. Rural states have far lower population densities (thus far less people and lower tax bases) making them the ideal locations for large defense bases greatly unbalancing spending vs population. Also many western states are greater than 50% owned by the federal government creating no tax revenues for the states and again increasing federal spending in those states for maintenance and upkeep of those lands.

[Daerio]

Now compare this to a map of the election-results.

The data is complicated and p-hacked to make a political point where there isn't one to be made. Trump had deeper support in the northeast than anywhere else.

http://time.com/4587866/donald-trump-election-map/

[alexw]

please you keep telling me all those confederate flag flying morons etc arent racist now? really you keep telling me KKK and other elements that endorsed trump are not racist?

I will give you this not all right wingers are racist but all racists are right wingers.

I would not say all racists are right wingers. Just the vast vast majority are.

[Daerio]

So in other words the "democratic" states are paying for the welfare of the "republican" states.

Only if you think defense spending is equal to welfare.

[Tijuana]

I would not say all racists are right wingers. Just the vast vast majority are.

You mean white racists. I seem to encounter FAR more black people who are racist than white people who are racist.

[Renathras]

It depends.
Do they feel uneasy when they have to sit next to a black guy?
Do they secretly believe a woman should stay at home to manage the household?

1) So you're a mind reader now? You know how people "feel" even if they don't say or do anything about it?
2) Wait wait wait...what if these people were "born this way" or a "product of their environment"*, arguments liberals tend to make about...well, basically anything or any poor, maladjusted group that they can pander to to get votes from.

*Spoiler alert: Most Humans are. It's called tribalism and is an evolutionary selected trait dating from the time of the earliest Humans, if not our proto-Human, more ape-like ancestors. In times of scarce resources, Humans had to band together to take down dangerous animals for food, but they also knew that if their group was too big, there wasn't as much food to go around. So they formed tribes so they could kill, say, the sabertooth tiger, but didn't have to share with any more people than was necessary. This created this penchant most Humans have to be with like groups - note that like doesn't necessarily mean race, it can also mean ideas. Liberals are not immune to this, their "like group" is ideological (the "liberal bubble" as it were), but also includes potential people to add to their "tribe", usually through a mockery of pity, not unlike the pseudo-intellectual notion of the "noble savage" in the late middle ages as regards natives of Africa, the Americas, etc - as if "savages" were really lesser Human beings such that some being "noble" was somehow a revolutionary trait.

At the least, it isn't something that people consciously choose, and it isn't even in most cases true.

Note here I'm just pointing out that it is "natural" to have a tribalist mindset, not that it is necessarily desired. But considering how liberals are insisting on the "they're born this way" argument for so many other things...OH, right, that's only things they like. My bad.

Actually none of that matters. What matters is their actions.

So...what you just said is "it doesn't actually matter if they're racists at all, I'm just going to call them racists if they do some things that I, as the arbiter of what is and isn't racism, deem as racist"?

And they just voted Trump into office.

Indeed, many of these people also voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. How racist of them.

Together with people like Steve Bannon.

Steve Bannon? Who's that? Is that the guy that did all that work for Jews and is huge for standing up for various groups around the world? Or is this some other Steve Bannon?

liberals have just abandoned the idea of winning people with rational and personal arguments
It's the contrary.

Is it really? How so?

They tried to win against conspiracy theories and random alt-right bullshit...

So...you start your argument of "we didn't use insults, we used rational arguments...with a string of insults. Not the best way to start...

...with rational arguments and decent discussion.

Such as? Like these examples:

"Basket of deplorables"
"Misogynists, racists, sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes...irredeemable."
"White supremacists"
"White nationalists"
"Bitter clingers"
"Uneducated, or they lack a college degree"
"backwards"
"Old white people that, hopefully, will soon all be dying off"

...are those the reasoned, rational arguments you're talking about?

Oh, there were also lots of insults against Trump himself - we were told how he's Hitler and he'll round up all the gays or something ("the gays", as if they're a family down the street like "the Smiths". I hate it when people use the term like that), that he'll start wars in the Middle-East (while Hillary Clinton was defending the war in Libya and insisting on a no-fly zone over Syria which would lead us directly into a potential WWIII confrontation with Putin's Russia...to the point JILL STEIN called her a warmonger, and Stein's supporters called her "goddess of war"), that black people and Hispanic people will live in constant fear of his oppression, that white supremacists will run free in the country...which part of that is "rational arguments and decent discussion"?

The closest thing we got to actual policies from the Clinton camp were almost always thinly veiled appeals to various identity groups, and generally paired with a fear mongering campaign about how bad it would be for them if Trump won - because this social neutral Trump guy wants to outlaw sucking dick or force all woman to have babies they don't want.

There was little in the way of rational discussion or policy discussion at...any time, really. The Presidential debates were cringe-worthy affairs of Clinton and Trump going after each other while avoiding the questions as much as was possible, with the "moderators" in the first two debates actively trying to help Clinton "win" the mud-slinging contest.

There was very little of what they were FOR, more how many names they could call their opponent, and their supporters did likewise. I heard VERY few rational, reasoned arguments or debate from liberals (and conservatives, but we're talking about liberals here) through the entire campaign. Most of it was fear mongering or saying how bad the other person was, and none of that, to me, is a rational discussion.

The liberals, though, were particularly bad about insulting anyone that disagreed with them.

Because, to these people, these "liberals", anyone that disagrees with them is basically an infidel, deserving of being burned at the stake...which means pilloried with all sorts of insults, whether or not the insults actually fit.

...just like you saying whether or not these people ARE racists and sexists doesn't matter - they voted for Trump and so that gives you the right to call them racists and sexists.

And they are still doing that! It's four weeks after the election and still people are posting that dumb image about "why we have the electoral college".
Four weeks of rational arguments and people are still defending a retarded democratic system.
And how do "liberals" respond? By trying to explain it once again, just so 1 hour later another alt-right links the same idiotic thing.

Again, THIS is rational discourse?

The Electoral College isn't going away, and it does serve a useful purpose today, even if almost despite its original intent - that is, it prevents anyone from winning and imposing their ideology on the nation by a simple mob rule majority.

There are far better systems, but the popular vote with first past the post isn't really one of them.

And no, government should not be neutral on these basic rights.

Marriage isn't a basic right, though. Marriage - in the sense you're talking about it - is a contract. Contract law is essentially never a matter of rights. Marriage - in the sense of being with someone you love - falls under your rights of association, which you're free to do. People may not recognize you as being married, but people can't keep you apart from one another, nor regulate what you do in the privacy of your own home, or even the public sphere with one another (as long as it doesn't violate public decency laws - which are another issue and a whole 'nother can of worms I have lots of problems with).

And where do you draw the line?
Do we want stuff like slavery to be done at state-level?

Slavery is already illegal under the 13th Amendment. Moreover, it violates the basic premise of life, liberty, and the pursuit (not necessarily attainment) of happiness. Slavery is a total Goodwin here, as it's an absurd argument. It's much like saying "And where do you draw the line? Do we want stuff like freedom of speech regulation to be done at the state-level?" And why is it always the argument that liberals jump on first? Seriously. Literally NO ONE alive in the United States of America today supports slavery or would support reimposing slavery today. NO ONE. Even the hardcorest white supremacists would rather kill or deport all the non-white people - they don't want to keep them around as slaves.

NO ONE is arguing for slavery, and yet it's one of the first arguments liberals jump to. WHY?! Again, that's not reasoned or rational, it's guilt by association...an association which hasn't been valid for OVER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS!!

The reason the line is drawn well before slavery is that the Constitution as amended (something that requires 4/5ths of the states to do) prohibits slavery. The Constitution as amended (the First Amendment, specifically) grants a blanket right to free speech (which they courts have curtailed in some cases such as yelling fire in a crowded theater or "offensive" speech or "fighting words"). We draw the line as a collective people when 4/5ths of us as states say "this thing shall be illegal everywhere" or "this thing shall be legal everywhere".

If 4/5ths of the states made same sex marriage legal in their borders, and 4/5ths of the states backed a Constitutional amendment to make same sex marriage legal everywhere, it would be legal everywhere in the US. It would already, by that point, be legal in the vast majority of the country by democratic process.

[Citizen T]

So in other words the "democratic" states are paying for the welfare of the "republican" states.

Delusion is hard to overcome but I'll try. First of all New Mexico the biggest imbalanced state on that map went Democrat. Secondly, when the spending is being done to support defense bases and federal land it's not exactly welfare unless you are referring to the public welfare.

[Halicia]

If the state acknowledges a marriage they should either make sure that gay couples can marry in a Church or (preferably) they should introduce a civil marriage where they are married without having a church.
Otherwise you are basically giving a church the power to decide who can and cannot benefit from laws.
That's separation of church and state-101.

To be fair, I think its the State's problem for making those laws in the first place.

There's no reason they can't openly recognize civil unions as being equal to marriage, lacking the recognition of faith, but maintaining all legal benefits.

Most of said "legal benefits" can be bestowed already. (with difficulty and lawyer's fees)

Removing marriage as a State institution would go a long ways towards solving these headaches.

[Lady Dragonheart]

They could, but they'd have to change a lot of their stances to accommodate more voters.

[Renathras]

Hilariously enough, you just did basically the same thing from the other side. Many people hold liberal views and don't run around calling everyone racist and sexist, so saying that "liberals resort only to insults to win" is you doing exact same thing.

Some huge percent of both sides are nowhere near the extremes that everyone likes to categorize them as, and I wish people would stop focusing on those extremes as much.

You're right in that I do tend to use liberals as a synonym for "Democrats", but I'm speaking here to the Democrats as a party and platform. Also, saying "you resort only to insults to win" is calling into question your methods as a person. That is, something you've chosen to do.

Saying "you're a racist/sexist" is calling into question your very character as a decent Human being, and making sweeping projections about your ENTIRE LIFE - you feel uncomfortable sitting next to someone of a different race, you think that the other gender shouldn't be able to work outside the home, etc etc. It makes an accusation about your entire life and your very worth as a Human being - since everyone basically thinks that racists and sexists are deplorable and sub-Humans compared to the rest of us, right?

Saying "you insult people" isn't even in the same league, much less the same ballpark, as calling someone a racist, sexist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, homophobe, etc.

Misogynist is one of the worst insults I can think of to call a person. It even SOUNDS like something you wouldn't want to be called.

Given the choice, would you rather people say "you insult people to win" or "you're a racist"? Which of those things would you, personally, be more offended, more incensed, at being called? I think we both know the answer. The first one isn't even really an insult, the second is an insult to the very core of your being.

.

Democrats hate white people so much they ran one for president just this year.

And didn't come out in the numbers they did for their previous, non-white candidate, resulting in her losing.

...I'm not saying that Democrats hate white people. I'm saying the Democrat platform's evolution has resulted in excluding them. A liberal buddy of mine used to ask me "why do poor white people vote against their economic interest by voting Republican?" My answer then was also shown fairly true in this election, because the Democrat party platform has excluded them. Clinton pandered to every group...except white people in general and white men in particular.

She won every group...except white people in general (even white women went for Trump by a majority) and white men in particular.

The Democrat party has said it has no place for them, and so they have, as a voting bloc, started to abandon it.

In the past, this wasn't an issue, because white people didn't vote as a minority block, but increasingly they may start to do so. Which is bad for everyone because they're still the largest voting block and are well distributed across the country to result in Electoral College wins.

Moreover, the Democrat party keeps insisting on social policies which these people largely disagree with and some of which (immigration) is explicitly designed to reduce their long-term political and social power.

[Annoying]

Interstate compacts must have the consent of Congress to have any legal ground. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution is quite clear about this. The President has no power over this - only Congress.

Oh, it's a legal mess. Lots arguing that Article 2's "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…" text allows it, lots arguing Article one, as you mentioned, and even a few people saying that the constitution both requires and prohibits Congressional approval of the compact.

Hey guys, token Libertarian here. Who gave the government the right to deny marriages in the first place? There should just be a form you file that notifies them it happened, and how you will be adjusting your tax returns.

Also, gay marriage is a legal issue, not a moral issue. At least, not in the spectrum of government action. Gay people will exist either way. Gay marriage just extends the legal marriage rights to the couple.

I'm alright with that, short of the tax returns. I have no idea why a married couple should pay less taxes. Which, actually, you can do what you're talking about in Pennsylvania, IIRC.

These types of comparisons are EXTREMELY disingenuous. Rural states have far lower population densities (thus far less people and lower tax bases) making them the ideal locations for large defense bases greatly unbalancing spending vs population. Also many western states are greater than 50% owned by the federal government creating no tax revenues for the states and again increasing federal spending in those states for maintenance and upkeep of those lands.

I figured someone from my state would chime in as to why we're so red. We've got 3 nuclear weapons facilities through the Department of Energy, 3 Air Force bases, an army base, and White Sands Missile Range (where we detonated the first nuke...). Of course we have huge federal deficit.

So in other words the "democratic" states are paying for the welfare of the "republican" states.

New Mexico is a democratic state...

[Renathras]

I was joking about California going first. They obviously will never do this, because if they did no Democrat could ever win the white house. Funny how this EC both protects and hinders both sides. It's almost like it's a really elegant and well thought out system, huh?

Well, it did originate as a "compromise".

While in the modern day it's seen as clunky and irrelevant, it's also likely kept some very bad people out of the job over the years, and as you point out, benefits both sides. In a clunky, ungainly sort of way, it is somewhat elegant.

[alexw]

If the claim that Republicans only win because of the electoral college were true in any way, then we would not be seeing Republican-controlled congresses, only Republican presidents, since the electoral college only affects the presidential election.

Tell me, who currently controls Congress? And who will control Congress in January? (hint...it's not the Democrats...)

The only reason republicans control congress is due to gerrymandering. Its a big part of why they dominate state legislatures too. They've used big data to gerrymander large majorities despite having less votes in elections than democrats. They are just not popular.

Fortunately it looks like the supreme court is going to put an end to that. There's a case going to SCOTUS sometime early next year, and Anthony Kennedy the swing SCOTUS ruled last time that gerrymandering was unconstitutional, but that nothing could be done about it because there was no measurable standard by which to decide whether a something had been gerrymandered or not. Now some bright academics have invented such a standard so its likely that gerrymandering will be on its way out.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...mandering.html

That's going to cause a hell of a lot of pain for republicans going into the future.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean white racists. I seem to encounter FAR more black people who are racist than white people who are racist.

Well I've encountered the opposite.

[Renathras]

California is already part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact since August 8, 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...mpact#Adoption

Pretty much exactly "conditional on other states doing it".

Yeah, I knew this was a thing, I just didn't remember the name and didn't remember if California had adopted it. It is mostly blue states though, with larger populations, I think...?

Oh, you certainly can address most (if not all) of them without marriage. In a rare case of me giving my opinion, I actually entirely agree that marriage shouldn't be handled at all by the government beyond all the legal bindings you mention (there's probably some better way to wrap a lot of it up neatly into a single thing, though).

I also hold this opinion. I don't think that marriage should confer any special legal benefits OR penalties to people. This would also allow (if it was simply the legal contract) it to work between any group of people. For example, if I have a sibling or parent that is mentally retarded and that I have to care for, I should be able to have some kind of contractual association with this person that covers things like medical decisions and power of attorney. These things exist, but are clunky and don't confer the same levels of protection that marriage contracts do.

And marriage licenses are just that - contracts. The government isn't saying they care who you love, they're saying they want to regulate your association or use it in other regulations.