World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Exhuminator]

I think it would be more useful to look at how counties voted to really understand the election:

Yep. Like I said, condensed urban population votes are not indicative of the entire nation.

[CRTGAMER]

I think it would be more useful to look at how counties voted to really understand the election:

Yep. Like I said, condensed urban population votes are not indicative of the entire nation.

The Popular vote is close between Trump and Clinton, less then 1 percent. Ironic that votes are STILL being counted, yet the EC decided already in many states before the total tally! Where is the voice when a small EC group decides each "winner take all" state without even waiting for all the ballot results! A percentage of the Electoral College in many states are PLEDGED (Vote Counted) TO EACH PARTY no matter what the Popular Vote; this wipes out any Independent Candidate who are not in the Republican or Democratic party!

Even though a given area is red or blue, ALL votes will be counted nation wide (if no EC) with the Majority deciding who will be President. Agree that lesser population areas will have less voting power, but then NO vote should have more power over another. As mentioned, there is the Senate and House that gives every state a voice.

[MrPopo]

Yep. Like I said, condensed urban population votes are not indicative of the entire nation.

The entire nation is all the people, not all the land mass. Don't forget that since the president is whoever captures 50%+1 of whatever system we use means he isn't want a very large portion of the country wanted. If half the country lives in dense urban areas their opinions and concerns are just as valid as the half that lives in spread out rural areas, and visa versa.

[Sarge]

Replace tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority? At some point there's always going to be tyranny in every government system where two people don't agree on everything.

It still empowers the majority, it just makes sure that the little guy isn't completely drowned out. The larger states still have an enormous influence on the election, just not to the point where smaller states are drowned out.

If there's a better system out there, outside of the popular vote, I'm all ears! Popular vote-only is a recipe for disaster, though.

[prfsnl_gmr]

If there's a better system out there, outside of the popular vote, I'm all ears! Popular vote-only is a recipe for disaster, though.

Maybe...A popular vote system would put votes in all 50 states in play, and it would keep candidates from focusing all of their efforts in the general election on states where electoral votes are in play. (That is, a democratic candidate would have an incentive to visit states like Kansas, Alabama, Texas, etc. to pick up votes, and a republican candidate would have an incentive to visit places like California, Massachusetts, etc.)

[Exhuminator]

If half the country lives in dense urban areas their opinions and concerns are just as valid as the half that lives in spread out rural areas, and visa versa.

The thing is, more than half the country will live in city areas soon enough, due to urbanization:

The United Nations projected that half of the world's population would live in urban areas at the end of 2008.[3] It is predicted that by 2050 about 64% of the developing world and 86% of the developed world will be urbanized. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization

The urban population in 2014 accounted for 54% of the total global population, up from 34% in 1960, and continues to grow. The urban population growth, in absolute numbers, is concentrated in the less developed regions of the world. It is estimated that by 2017, even in less developed countries, a majority of people will be living in urban areas. - http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/sit ... h_text/en/

However, I can understand why some people say that popular vote is more important than fair regional representation, I get it. I just don't agree with it. Because there is an ebb and flow to this too: http://fortune.com/2016/03/28/millennia ... ng-cities/

[Sarge]

Maybe...A popular vote system would put votes in all 50 states in play, and it would keep candidates from focusing all of their efforts in the general election on states where electoral votes are in play. (That is, a democratic candidate would have an incentive to visit states like Kansas, Alabama, Texas, etc. to pick up votes, and a republican candidate would have an incentive to visit places like California, Massachusetts, etc.)

Sure, but the only thing they'd need to do is cater to the largest cities. They wouldn't have to speak to most of the state, just target those population centers. And the concerns of a city-dweller are far different than those in rural areas. I know because I've lived in both.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Good point.

[MrPopo]

So the solution is to make the rural areas have a disproportional effect on the results? That seems like a violation of the fundamental idea behind democracy.

Also, don't forget that you still have the entire legislative branch that's apportioned by state and region and has the senate specifically to ensure small areas aren't left behind. The president doesn't actually create laws, remember?

[Sarge]

I would note that we are not a pure democracy, and were not designed as such. The solution the founders came up with was a compromise between the needs of the majority and the needs of the minority. It's not as if the smaller states have authority equal to the larger states, only that they have a bit more than they would under a direct democracy.

I found both of these articles to have compelling points on the matter, written from both a left- and right-leaning point of view.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-t ... l-college/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... llege.html

And no, the President doesn't make laws, but he signs them into law and is responsible for their implementation, so that isn't a small thing.