This is Stupid

[Mikthehun1]

um. no?

It was put in place because we are a union of states, and each state is equal, in that each state entity gets equal representation (2 out of 100 senate seats/votes). whereas the house is for the people, and every gets approximate equal representation on those remaining ~450 votes. the problem is that the house has not grown proportionally over the years as population grows. and people tend to forget that we are a union of states, but this is an issue with too much federal growth/power and centralization.

the fact that each state has given its two votes to its citizens popular vote is the reason it looks like this as well.

This still doesn't address why the electoral votes are not in line with the popular vote. I really would like to know a good rationale for that.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

Trump only has his best interest in mind, not the American people For the record, I feel the same way about Hillary.

Lobbying should be illegal for any group other than true non-profits (not funded by "interested" corporations). Corporate personhood should be outlawed. Every office should have fixed term limits. The electoral college only serves to disenfranchise voters. There, I fixed everything. Next!

I think Trump has his own interests in mind yes, but his interests include wanting his family and the American people to do well. I think he wants a legacy of improving the country.

I don't know how to fix the problem. I think term limits are good. I don't agree with the funding thing because I assume the huge corporations will always find a way. We just have to work together to vote in the best people we can. I would like to see it become impossible for a former president to become rich selling book deals or lectures, because I see that as another source of the corruption we currently have. There should be heavy limits to who a former president or any politician can take money from. And more aggressive prosecution of corrupt behavior. No more looking the other way when someone's kid makes millions in the Ukraine and China.

Look at the popular vote vs. the electoral vote. How is ok that someone can get more actual votes, but still lose? It was put in place in the 18th century because the rich landed elite were afraid they would lose power over the unwashed masses. What purpose does it serve now, except to allow for shady redistricting?

The way I think of the system is that it allows the unwashed masses that aren't elites living in NYC and LA to have a voice. All of us in "fly over country" are granted a voice by the electoral system.

 

[Silver Bullitt]

Look at the popular vote vs. the electoral vote. How is ok that someone can get more actual votes, but still lose? It was put in place in the 18th century because the rich landed elite were afraid they would lose power over the unwashed masses. What purpose does it serve now, except to allow for shady redistricting?

It's intent is to be reprentative of the collective states, not the popular vote of the people. It provides a more fair balance among the states (less populous vs more populous).

 

[Jimmy Dean]

This still doesn't address why the electoral votes are not in line with the popular vote. I really would like to know a good rationale for that.

Because there are ~550 votes.

the states, as entities, get 2 votes each, all equal. leaving ~450 votes.

these ~450 votes get divied up fairly equally between the entire countries population, and actually over represent NY, Texas, and California.

Now, most of the states (maybe all) have decided to give their two votes to their states popular vote. They are not required federally to do this, they have simply chosen to. This gives the appearance that the population of smaller states is over represented, but it isn't really the case. they are equally represented on their votes, and then their states are allowing them to make the decision on how the state uses their 2 votes, of which they have more say than an individual person in a larger state who allows the same.

 

[watisthis]

It's intent is to be reprentative of the collective states, not the popular vote of the people. It provides a more fair balance among the states (less populous vs more populous).

Trump is the perfect example of why we have the EC and why it does not actually work out in practice. The EC serves as a final check against unqualified populist candidates. The EC is cited as a way to avoid the tyranny of the majority. However, just because Trump won your state does not mean your electoral vote has to go to him. You'll note Trump won Texas yet one of Texas's votes went to Kasich, another went to Ron Paul who wasn't even running. If more electoral voters were willing to do this, we would not have Trump as a President.

We should care more about the equality of people more than we care about the equality of states.

 

[Mikthehun1]

I appreciate all the responses, but I'm still not convinced the EC has a positive impact on the county (as @watisthis mentioned). Either way you slice it, there's aspects of our government that could use some serious modernization.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I appreciate all the responses, but I'm still not convinced the EC has a positive impact on the county (as @watisthis mentioned). Either way you slice it, there's aspects of our government that could use some serious modernization.

I like the idea of the EC, I think that it can be done a bit better, but I also like the idea of a ranked choice or other type than just FPTP, especially when it comes to elections for the hill so that we get more than 2 parties. I am real tired of this extreme right or extreme left (for America) BS.

 

[Burkey]

It's interesting how skewed a view is presented by the huge corporate conglomerates trying to discredit any person that supports the little guy. And it's interesting how people buy into the fake news.

Except that it’s pretty much EVERY source of media outside of the US.....
It’s not fake news I’m sorry mate. We actually watch this man speaking. It’s his words that indict him, not the media.

 

[Burkey]

Yes, quite literally anything that doesn't fall in your world view is fake news. We know.

Did “fake news” even exist prior to Trump?

 

[Hack]

Did “fake news” even exist prior to Trump?

Of course it did. It has become easier and easier to spot the lies now that we have better access to information, though. Frankly I feel it has become more blatant and shrill as well.

 

[watisthis]

Did “fake news” even exist prior to Trump?

People choose their own "truth." The only people still calling things 'fake news' are the people who are too lazy or unintelligent to prove something incorrect and provide the 'real' news. Like there is some objective reality out there to these people.

 

[Burkey]

Of course it did. It has become easier and easier to spot the lies now that we have better access to information, though. Frankly I feel it has become more blatant and shrill as well.

I used quotation marks for a reason. I’m referring specifically to the term, not the implication.
Historically, we might have used the term “biased”. I don’t recall any leader ever using the term “fake news” before (although, I wasn’t around when Hitler was in power so maybe?).
It seems that Trump popularised it and has successfully used it as a means to shut down any critical thought amongst those who are often lacking in that area to begin with.

 

[Burkey]

People choose their own "truth." The only people still calling things 'fake news' are the people who are too lazy or unintelligent to prove something incorrect and provide the 'real' news. Like there is some objective reality out there to these people.

And that’s my fundamental objection right there.
Simply saying “fake news” isn’t in the same ballpark as offering a proper rebuttal, loaded with facts. It’s disappointing that those with TDS can’t see it that way. They also don’t realise that they’re the ones who have TDS. The man is perfect in their eyes, above criticism in fact and anything that could prove otherwise just fits into the “fake news” side of the ledger.

 

[Hack]

I used quotation marks for a reason. I’m referring specifically to the term, not the implication.
Historically, we might have used the term “biased”. I don’t recall any leader ever using the term “fake news” before (although, I wasn’t around when Hitler was in power so maybe?).
It seems that Trump popularised it and has successfully used it as a means to shut down any critical thought amongst those who are often lacking in that area to begin with.

I think you're right that Trump might have come up with it. Definitely people have been talking about media bias for a long time and I noticed it about the time I became an adult and started thinking for myself.

People like Hitler and Stalin had the (forced) assistance of their local news media. Obama had a news media that helped him and rarely criticized him. You can easily find information about the percentage of negative reports since Trump became president vs. previously. It's well known and very easy to see if you pay any attention at all.

I think you have it completely wrong on the critical thinking thing. If you believe news might be fake, that gives you a reason to question it. Unless you are the type that doesn't think critically and you never question the news. I have noticed that the news has been problematic for at least the last 30 years, but it either used to be a lot more subtle or I didn't know enough yet.

And that’s my fundamental objection right there.
Simply saying “fake news” isn’t in the same ballpark as offering a proper rebuttal, loaded with facts. It’s disappointing that those with TDS can’t see it that way. They also don’t realise that they’re the ones who have TDS. The man is perfect in their eyes, above criticism in fact and anything that could prove otherwise just fits into the “fake news” side of the ledger.

The problem is when you get ganged up on you don't have the resources to rebut every crazy claim that's out there. It's amazing how much crap is pushed by the fake news MSM. Loads and loads of it.

And if you pay attention you will find that they have their talking points and there are quite a few of them that say the same thing during the news cycle. That is the fact that really helps if you are a critical thinker. HMM, why are all these different news sources using the exact same phrase to describe something that just happened? What does this say about the process by which the MSM generates their news stories?

 

[Hack]

Millions of people do NOT approve of what he's done, what he's said, and how he's acted as president. Many of those millions are involved in "the media". Are they supposed to praise him anyway? I know he needs it badly for his massively insecure self. This is kool-aid drinking at its finest. Trump says it, so it must be true.

I'd love to see lack of bias and factual reporting. Journalism. Not opinion (hit) pieces masquerading as hard news.

But I realize it's not going to happen.

Your criticism misses the mark. Just because I say that the MSM is very flawed doesn't mean I think Trump has no flaws. Those are two separate things.

Sponsored