Voting in US - What's the point?

[Endus]

They're recounting swing states. Your vote matters for the state, if they recount Pennsylvania and its found that Hilary got the popular vote of the state then she gets the electoral votes.

Just a minor quibble; if the system actually worked like that, then there'd be no need whatsoever for the Electoral College, in the first place; you'd just tally up the votes in the State, and they get X points for whichever candidate wins.

The Electoral College exists precisely so that if 80% of their State votes for a literal rhinoceros, the Electoral College can say "you guys are morons, we're voting for <Actual Human Candidate> because fuck you idiots for voting for a goddamned rhino."

Sure, some States have passed laws to try and negate that somewhat, but that's the original purpose of the EC. If it's just supposed to blindly vote for whatever the State's popular vote decision was, you don't need the EC at all, and the election could've been finalized in November.

Yeah I remember when some people wanted to establish a bill of rights, fundamentally changing the scope of the federal government, and their only two options were usurping the government or waging civil war.

Another quibble; the Founding Fathers always wanted the Bill of Rights, but it was clear there'd be much debate over the details, so they left it out of the original Constitution so they could get the framework of government in place and spend a couple years hashing out the final phrasing of the Bill of Rights. They were all ratified and in place by 1791. There was no "usurping" or "civil war".

[mvaliz]

The majority does not represent the whole if it wasn't for a vocal minority slavery would have continued longer, civil rights wouldn't have come as soon, nor would women's right to vote and gay marriage. Also many people sadly don't even vote for ideas they vote for a person and a large population doesn't even vote.

Did you just call the wish to end slavery being done by a "vocal minority"!? Goddess help us...

[Palizangetsu]

Yeah I remember when that was true. Wait do you actually believe that's still true?

Because it still is true... So you are saying it is impossible for a President to be impeached for going to war without the approval of Congress?

[Antereon]

Voting actually does matter. For example, a state like Pennsylvania worth 20 electoral points can shift in either direction depending on the people who goes out to vote. Yes, technically you're voting for the person who ends up voting for the president. So your vote does matter... at least in key battleground states. If you live in California then you can probably skip voting day knowing Cali will go blue regardless.

Is it a perfect system? Hell no, but if everyone on the left/right in battleground states starts assuming "my vote doesn't matter, why should I even bother" then don't complain when the person you don't want to become president wins. For example, the voting rate in Philadelphia (a city for 1.5 million) was 68%. Assuming everyone an register to vote, that leaves 480k something votes that could have determined the result of Pennsylvania. Now Pennsylvania can only go blue because of Philadelphia and Pittsburg, so your vote here, either rural or urban, matters a lot more than a single california vote.

I personally think the EC is a stupid system that needs to go, but it certainly is not pointless as many people claim it to be.

[NineSpine]

Just a minor quibble; if the system actually worked like that, then there'd be no need whatsoever for the Electoral College, in the first place; you'd just tally up the votes in the State, and they get X points for whichever candidate wins.

The Electoral College exists precisely so that if 80% of their State votes for a literal rhinoceros, the Electoral College can say "you guys are morons, we're voting for <Actual Human Candidate> because fuck you idiots for voting for a goddamned rhino."

Sure, some States have passed laws to try and negate that somewhat, but that's the original purpose of the EC. If it's just supposed to blindly vote for whatever the State's popular vote decision was, you don't need the EC at all, and the election could've been finalized in November.



Another quibble; the Founding Fathers always wanted the Bill of Rights, but it was clear there'd be much debate over the details, so they left it out of the original Constitution so they could get the framework of government in place and spend a couple years hashing out the final phrasing of the Bill of Rights. They were all ratified and in place by 1791. There was no "usurping" or "civil war".

I was mocking someone saying that the only way to change the system was usurping the government or a civil war.

Also, the bill of rights was contentious and many thought it was an awful idea.

[Endus]

One thing I have always noticed about the system is that its good when the person they want wins. Bad when the person they want to win doesn't.

That's not really the case. Complaints about the EC and how it works emerges in elections where the President-elect (in this case, Trump) loses the popular vote but wins the EC regardless. It creates an apparent conflict between the two measures.

The only two times it's happened in living memory have been the current election, and the 2000 Bush v. Gore race, where Gore won the popular vote but the EC decision went to Bush. Prior to that, you're digging back to 1888, when Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the EC to Harrison. This isn't a particularly common occurrence.

[mvaliz]

Did people cry this much about the system when obama won?

No, because he won both electoral and popular both times.

Living Republicans never faced an election where they lost to the electoral college but won the popular vote, and you damn well know if they did the alt-right militas would've shot someone by now over it.

[NineSpine]

Because it still is true... So you are saying it is impossible for a President to be impeached for going to war without the approval of Congress?

I'm saying the U.S. has been involved in many times more international conflicts since WWII than it did in the 150 years before WWII, yet hasn't declared war a single time since then. The War Powers Act has pretty much taken away the necessity of congressional authorization.

[ranzino]

Do you know who gets to decide whether we go to war, regardless of how they vote? The President. The congress can't force the President to prosecute a war.

Declaration of War is a prerogative of Congress by Article One, Section Eight of your Constitution.

[Torgent]

Or they are showing you that you need to stop being lazy and research why it is that way rather than go HURDUR DAT RONG.

I know exactly why it was implemented. It's still wrong. The concern of "Those cities shouldn't get to pick" is invalid. The vote should be "the people get to pick". So only popular vote makes any sense. I'm not saying Hillary would have won, but the electoral college is a horrible system in terms of fairness. Some states, their vote counts for literally 4 times more (based on population to electoral vote ratio).

[Low Hanging Fruit]

That's not really the case. Complaints about the EC and how it works emerges in elections where the President-elect (in this case, Trump) loses the popular vote but wins the EC regardless. It creates an apparent conflict between the two measures.

The only two times it's happened in living memory have been the current election, and the 2000 Bush v. Gore race, where Gore won the popular vote but the EC decision went to Bush. Prior to that, you're digging back to 1888, when Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the EC to Harrison. This isn't a particularly common occurrence.

So only two times in living memory it has happen.. right.. I agree..

and in both cases it was the side that lost that had a problem with it and the side that won didn't?

I see.. I see

[NineSpine]

Declaration of War is a prerogative of Congress by Article One, Section Eight of your Constitution.

I think you missed my point: The President doesn't have to prosecute a war he doesn't want to.

[Drew79]

We might as well only let tax payers vote. People who have no skin in the game shouldn't get a vote.

Or we can go to land owners. I have a house, I get a vote. Renters get some land if you want a say in elections!

[Felya]

Did people cry this much about the system when obama won?

Yes!!! Here is Trump from 2012 talking about Romney losing the popular vote. Yeah, Romney never won the popular vote, Trump was impatient:

(This is a combination of his explosion on Twitter, before west coast numbers came in.)

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country! The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided! Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. More votes equals a loss...revolution! Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

What's also funny, this thread is flashback to 2000. This rhetoric should seem very familiar to those around 30.

[Endus]

What's also funny, this thread is flashback to 2000. This rhetoric should seem very familiar to those around 30.

I'd venture that a lot of people who had issues with that decision in 2000 but sucked it up and accepted it also remember the shit-tastic pro-torture Bush years in less-than-fond terms, and are less likely to want to make a similar "error" a second time.

[Felya]

So only two times in living memory it has happen.. right.. I agree..

and in both cases it was the side that lost that had a problem with it and the side that won didn't?

I see.. I see

Nope, Trump him self had a problem with it 4 years ago. Yeah, Romney lost the popular vote, but Trump reports the truth. Look up, I quoted his ranting. According to Trump, he is a loser and we need a revolution.

[GuavaJava]

Yeah you can keep saying that, but when I look at the real world, I see a bunch of economically powerful blue states where those things are the case, and a bunch of failed moocher red states leeching off of those blue states.

Maybe people in blue states should stop electing politicians who support and create these federal laws mandating that red states "mooch" from the blue states. But seeing as they don't do this, I think such people don't really have a genuine problem with it and simply just want something to whine about.

[NineSpine]

I'm well aware that Obama won the popular vote then, but even assuming Trump had been right and Obama had not won the popular vote, it would still be the side that lost complaining, since the Republicans lost that time.

The thing is that Republicans lose their shit and invent elaborate conspiracy theories for why the Democrat isn't the real President anyway.

[Felya]

I'd venture that a lot of people who had issues with that decision in 2000 but sucked it up and accepted it also remember the shit-tastic pro-torture Bush years in less-than-fond terms, and are less likely to want to make a similar "error" a second time.

What is really damning about Trump's defense, is people are relying on the idea that it only matters for democrats. When Trump has had the same reaction as many times as the popular vote didn't match the electoral in his life time. The problem being, the second time he had an issue with it, is when his truth reporting was bitching about Romney winning the popular vote... that never happened. It exposes both, Trump's ignorance in reporting that Romney won the popular vote and the ignorance of his support, that doesn't even know it happened.

[Palizangetsu]

I'm saying the U.S. has been involved in many times more international conflicts since WWII than it did in the 150 years before WWII, yet hasn't declared war a single time since then. The War Powers Act has pretty much taken away the necessity of congressional authorization.

A president could still be impeached doesn't change the fact and whether they have or haven't doesn't mean it can't happen.