Does your vote in 2020 really matter- most likely not

[Ouroboros]

Griped about for good reason, mind you. It originally existed to give wealthy plantation owners more teeth to defend slavery from the rising opposition, to make it be about 'states'rather than the will of the people. And has since turned into a way to undermine the same people through gerrymandering into what cannot be called anything but election fixing.

Some years ago, we had in our state on the ballot to change the gerrymandering, instead of politicians draw the lines there would be judges or lawyers or such doing it. An independent board. However, it didn't go through, probably because of the misinforming political ads making it sounds like it would be biased... instead of the biased system that we currently have...?!

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you at least remember what he meant by "undesirable"?
Tom

Nope. Can't remember what it was. Can't remember if he called it "undesirable" either.

On another note, I'm currently reading a book about how we're not equipped mentally to be rational voters. Basically, if we get a meteor crash next year, Trump will lose.

(Apologies if I sound a bit confused... the vintage dark beer is 12.5% proof...)

 

[Stanyon]

Because that's how you'd want to win?
Misinformation??

If they are too dumb to know what day they are supposed to vote on then they are probably too dumb to be voting.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Griped about for good reason, mind you. It originally existed to give wealthy plantation owners more teeth to defend slavery from the rising opposition, to make it be about 'states'rather than the will of the people. And has since turned into a way to undermine the same people through gerrymandering into what cannot be called anything but election fixing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ent.svg/1200px-DifferingApportionment.svg.png

I agree 100 percent. I live in such a gerrymandered district. Downstate Illinois is carefully divided to ensure GOP dominance while Chicago and a few other areas of the state are set up to ensure Dem dominance. Every 10 years redistricting is supervised by incumbents bent on keeping themselves and their parties in office.

 

[Stanyon]

I guess I can see some of the reasons some are still crying about the humiliating and decisive defeat of their chosen champion three years after the fact. Almost everyone was assuring them their leper messiah would win, pollsters, late night television hosts, popular media, certain national news organizations, celebrities, etc. and then the big let down.

 

[columbus]

It originally existed to give wealthy plantation owners more teeth to defend slavery from the rising opposition,

It was really even more basic than that.
Originally, the states were pretty darned sovereign. The President was not expected to meddle in domestic affairs, the elected officials of each state did that for themselves. The President was intended to represent the state legislatures, as a group, to foreign governments. Including war, if Congress declared one.

The biggest issues of the 2016 election were national healthcare, immigration, and income taxes. None of those very domestic issues even existed when the EC was designed. The Federal government had no say.
But now states are really provinces. More autonomous than in most countries, but nothing like the "States" that United to form this country.

The EC now mainly serves to keep the partisan elite in power. The legislature of nearly all states can confidently expect the voters to turn out a majority for the presidential candidate from their party. So sending EC delegates to vote for their partisan interests works for them. Pretending it's the "Will of the People" puts a veneer of democratic process on the raw partisanship that keeps the parties in power, and able to serve the economic elite who really run the US.

That's why it's so difficult to even have a reasonable discussion about the EC, much less change it.
Tom

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One of my kids is a math major, and he showed me that even with a direct vote (popularity vote) there would be undesired outcomes as well... darn if I can remember his proof though. :/

There's a lot of literature out there on it, both practical and theoretical. Winner-take-all is by its very nature going to produce "undesirable outcomes" for some group or other. Proportional representation systems can overcome some of those problems, but introduce others. Direct democracy is risky for minorities (including the wealthy), but there are arguments for and against it as well.

 

[columbus]

I guess I can see some of the reasons some are still crying about the humiliating and decisive defeat of their chosen champion three years after the fact. Almost everyone was assuring them their leper messiah would win, pollsters, late night television hosts, popular media, certain national news organizations, celebrities, etc. and then the big let down.

That's why it's so difficult to even have a reasonable discussion about the EC, much less change it.

I rest my case.
Tom

 

[Stanyon]

It was really even more basic than that.
Originally, the states were pretty darned sovereign. The President was not expected to meddle in domestic affairs, the elected officials of each state did that for themselves. The President was intended to represent the state legislatures, as a group, to foreign governments. Including war, if Congress declared one.

The biggest issues of the 2016 election were national healthcare, immigration, and income taxes. None of those very domestic issues even existed when the EC was designed. The Federal government had no say.
But now states are really provinces. More autonomous than in most countries, but nothing like the "States" that United to form this country.

The EC now mainly serves to keep the partisan elite in power. The legislature of nearly all states can confidently expect the voters to turn out a majority for the presidential candidate from their party. So sending EC delegates to vote for their partisan interests works for them. Pretending it's the "Will of the People" puts a veneer of democratic process on the raw partisanship that keeps the parties in power, and able to serve the economic elite who really run the US.

That's why it's so difficult to even have a reasonable discussion about the EC, much less change it.
Tom

A bit like if you put your gun down I'll put my gun down, do you trust me?

 

[Watchmen]

Does your vote in 2020 really matter- most likely not

USA 1016 election

Here are the final numbers:
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote. (That's a difference of 2.86 million votes.)
Here is the final popular vote count of the 2016 election just in case you want to feel bad

It was the Electoral College that got Trump into the White House, not the U.S. citizens vote.

So folks, it matters not how you vote but if you don’t vote you have no say in the matter.

Are You Going To Vote & why

Thanks in advance

-

The popular vote in 2016 is irrelevant because the “rules” of the election do not take the popular vote into account, and thus the candidates campaigned differently than they would have. For example, had the election rule been popular votes win, the candidates would NOT have spent so much time in swing states. Rather, they would have focused on higher populated areas. I know folks like to point out that Hillary “won” the popular vote, but that win is meaningless because it has no basis in the rules of the election and the candidates would have campaigned drastically differently. Anyone who is being intellectually honest should admit that if the rule was win by popular vote we don’t know who would have won.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I guess I can see some of the reasons some are still crying about the humiliating and decisive defeat of their chosen champion three years after the fact. Almost everyone was assuring them their leper messiah would win, pollsters, late night television hosts, popular media, certain national news organizations, celebrities, etc. and then the big let down.

No, it certainly COULDN'T be that it's a flawed system that someone could have genuine and ongoing dislike of, could it?

 

[columbus]

A bit like if you put your gun down I'll put my gun down, do you trust me?

Like I said.
It's nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this.
Tom

 

[Stanyon]

Like I said.
It's nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this.
Tom

Do you trust me?

 

[columbus]

Do you trust me?

Trust you to what?
You seem extremely partisan, so in many ways no.
Chaperone a party my kids are attending, yep.
Way better than @Sunstone, that's for sure.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

Because the office of the President and the US have both changed enormously in the intervening years.
Tom

What in the world has that got to do with this? We are still a representative Republic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you at least remember what he meant by "undesirable"?
Tom

I can give some examples of that from Australia which would apply at a basic level. Gonna have to wait until I've finished making slime with a bunch of kids though.

 

[columbus]

What in the world has that got to do with this? We are still a representative Republic.

Please do read post #26.
I explained my opinion there.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nope. Can't remember what it was. Can't remember if he called it "undesirable" either.

On another note, I'm currently reading a book about how we're not equipped mentally to be rational voters. Basically, if we get a meteor crash next year, Trump will lose.

(Apologies if I sound a bit confused... the vintage dark beer is 12.5% proof...)

1. I can help, I'll post some examples later.
2. What ya drinking? I'm quite the beer geek.

 

[columbus]

Nope. Can't remember what it was. Can't remember if he called it "undesirable" either.

On another note, I'm currently reading a book about how we're not equipped mentally to be rational voters. Basically, if we get a meteor crash next year, Trump will lose.

(Apologies if I sound a bit confused... the vintage dark beer is 12.5% proof...)

I get a little testy when other people drunk post.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I can give some examples of that from Australia

WE ALL KNOW ABOUT AUSTRALIA!
Tom