Do Voters Share the Blame for Trump?

[youknowme]

If you are for the Electoral College then you are necessarily against a fair voting process, because the two cannot exist at the same time, as it gives some voters more voting power than others, and not based on their merit or better quality, but simply because of where they happen to live. The Electoral College does not do what it was intended to, there have only been 16 faithless electors since 1900. Arguing what it is suppose to do is pointless because it is clearly broken and does not work, and at this point the only thing it does is create an unfair voting process.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's little reason to engage in useless speculations.

Getting those who don't care much to vote doesn't
appear likely to change anything for the better.
Use this info to find more worthwhile pursuits.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are for the Electoral College then you are necessarily against a fair voting process....

That's a pretty extreme position.
There are a couple views....
1) We're a federation of states, & the states do the voting.
2) The states are largely subsumed by the federal government,
and individual votes should be equal.
Both have their fairness & unfairness.

Btw, EC's results usually reflect the popular vote, but
with elements of randomness & state power tossed in.

 

[esmith]

If you are for the Electoral College then you are necessarily against a fair voting process, because the two cannot exist at the same time, as it gives some voters more voting power than others, and not based on their merit or better quality, but simply because of where they happen to live. The Electoral College does not do what it was intended to, there have only been 16 faithless electors since 1900. Arguing what it is suppose to do is pointless because it is clearly broken and does not work, and at this point the only thing it does is create an unfair voting process.

Spoken like a resident of a coastal city and/or of a large population center

 

[Father Heathen]

If you want a moral leadership, go to Church.

Going back to this comment, if conservatives really feel this way about morality, then why all of the screeching and squealing about locking Hillary up over emails and Benghazi? It seems that they tend to work themselves into a frothing rage whenever a democrat is perceived to have done something wrong (no matter how petty or trivial), but then go silent when one of their own does something similar - or worse -, and then work themselves into a frothing rage again when the rest of the world ceases to take them seriously.

 

[Nous]

Getting those who don't care much to vote doesn't
appear likely to change anything for the better.
Use this info to find more worthwhile pursuits.

What could be more worthwhile than seeking to reduce the advantage in a priori voting power that voters in large states enjoy as a result of the electoral system, in favor of maximizing and equalizing voting power that voters get with the national popular vote method (Miller, 2009)?

 

[Revoltingest]

What could be more worthwhile than seeking to reduce the advantage in a priori voting power that voters in large states enjoy as a result of the electoral system, in favor of maximizing and equalizing voting power that voters get with the national popular vote method (Miller, 2009)?

I don't see that getting the disinterested to cast votes is useful.
I don't oppose it....I just won't expend any effort enabling it.
But getting the popular vote has the advantage of occasionally
reduced expense & grief fighting over the results.

 

[youknowme]

Spoken like a resident of a coastal city and/or of a large population center

Guess again.

 

[esmith]

Guess again.

Then it must be in a hotbed of the liberal ideas

 

[youknowme]

Then it must be in a hotbed of the liberal ideas

I call it math.

 

[esmith]

I call it math.

I call it no more fun and games; have a nice day. Bye.

 

[Watchmen]

Trump is clearly way below par for what we should want out of a US President. Someone like him should never be put into the office of the President, but yet it happened. So did the system fail us? Did the voters fail? What do you think and why? And how do we prevent something like this from happening again?

False premise.

 

[Revoltingest]

I call it no more fun and games; have a nice day. Bye.

Here's the thing about math....
It's a useful tool.
But having it doesn't guarantee the right answer any more
than having a hammer makes one an expert cabinet maker.
We need to see the premises & the calculations.
(Usually, this is a big problem in creationist arguments.)

 

[Nous]

I don't see that getting the disinterested to cast votes is useful.
I don't oppose it....I just won't expend any effort enabling it.

You didn't address the question I asked. I didn't say anything about "getting disinterested voters to cast ballots".

Nicholas Miller (and probably et al.) has shown that electing the president by the electoral system diminishes the apriori Banzhaf voting power of voters in small states. Voting power is the probability of any individual voter casting the decisive vote in an election. Even though the blockheads on the Court have not yet understood it, voting power is a critical aspect of the recognized constitutional principle of equal voting rights.

Miller has shown that electing the president by national popular vote uniquely maximizes and equalizes voting power. It's easy enough to understand how any multi-tiered system of voting dilutes voting power of individuals in smaller populations compared to those in larger populations. There is no more direct way to eliminate this inequality than by removing the multi-tiered system.

Thus, the question I asked.

See: index.htm

 

[Revoltingest]

You didn't address the question I asked.

It sounded rhetorical because you provided the answer.
But I don't know that the popular vote would reduce
power of the large states.

Do you think having more people vote (ie, the ones who
otherwise would not) would make the quality of voting better?

 

[tytlyf]

Do you think having more people vote (ie, the ones who
otherwise would not) would make the quality of voting better?

Yes. But you can start with the popular vote and get rid of the electoral system. Which would be an improvement.
What disadvantages do you see in having every eligible person in America vote? Even if they're disinterested in politics?

 

[esmith]

Yes. But you can start with the popular vote and get rid of the electoral system. Which would be an improvement.
What disadvantages do you see in having every eligible person in America vote? Even if they're disinterested in politics?

Do you mean disinterested in politics or disinterested in policies?
There is a major difference.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. But you can start with the popular vote and get rid of the electoral system. Which would be an improvement.
What disadvantages do you see in having every eligible person in America vote? Even if they're disinterested in politics?

I don't see a real disadvantage.
But it is possible that results could be worse.

 

[tytlyf]

Do you mean disinterested in politics or disinterested in policies?
There is a major difference.

Either. You can't expect the populace to be informed of all policies, etc. Unless you required some sort of education program for all voters to review (based on facts obviously). Democrats are in favor of limits on donations, etc for campaigns. Republicans are not. Political donations should be limited to $100 per person. And no dark money involved.

 

[tytlyf]

I don't see a real disadvantage.
But it is possible that results could be worse.

Highly doubtful things would be worse. Take the 2016 election for example. Republicans claim to be political experts on policy, etc. Look how that turned out.

So people voting based on evidence and facts that claim to not be political experts would be more informed than those who claim to 'know it all' and end up being manipulated for their votes.

So you have experts being swayed by propaganda (dangerous) and non-experts trying to vote based on facts/evidence. The people who don't watch political news all day long are more informed in most cases. It just depends on what you call truth/facts/evidence.