People are actually shocked that Trump went to CA. Media is asking: WHY? The attention outside of swing states just isn't there. You think we'd be asking Kamala about Fracking if Pennsylvania wasn't a swing state?
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Except you are wrong. They still do all that stuff. They are distributed over the internet, but all that stuff is still done. Why else did KH have that cringy video at a Sheetz? And they do the mass media buys where it's needed - places like NC. I was in PA last week and it was crazy. But I still see all that stuff here in MD as that's power of the internet. Wyoming doesn't get the same because they are decided and it would be no different with or without media buys. But you can believe they still see it. They have internet, no thanks to Joe and Kamala.
But that's a rural issue that impacts PA and their overall economy. How many fracking jobs are based in Philly and Pissburg? And rural issues tend to be universal. Fracking is important to PA, but coal mining/use and oil drilling, pipelines, refineries, etc. are issues elsewhere.
You can pick all the exceptions to the rule that you want, but there are the rules for a reason. Most "urban places are very Dem".
So the problem should be exploded? Others, like PA has issues as well. Whoever wins, wins. But it should be beyond question. No one should support anything that allows election integrity to be questioned.
And of those 30 remaining cities, the ones that don't get attention, how have they reliably (or the states in which they reside) voted? Let's see that breakdown.
I agree that both of them have concentrated in the swings, but you really think that rural and less populated areas would get MORE attention with a popular contest system? I think you are kidding yourself.
Don't be disingenuous. You can't take an election done with a system that was entirely based on the EC format and then claim that proves a tiny, almost irrelevant, population base would get attention. EVERYTHING would be different and they'd spend time and money like they always do - where it matters given the rules of the system at the time. Why spend resources on 600,000 votes when you could be somewhere getting 6,000,000?
I agree with the theoretical stance that one vote in Wyoming or Montana would matter just as much as a vote in Cali or NY, but they aren't sitting down having supper with all 330 million of us (approx 150 mil voters, I think). They are always gonna go with maximizing results with limited resources. Campaigns are limited by two things: time and money. Why would they do a 50 mil ad buy in Montana instead of somewhere that can produce results?
The most glaring detail that was ignored by the guy in the video was the 3/5's clause. Slave owners wanted their slaves to count as part of the population, but they couldn't vote. So... They settled on 3/5 of a person. I wonder why Virginia had so many presidents in the first 50 years.
Yes, agreed. America has had many things in it's history over which it can't be proud given historical perspective and the evolutions of society that have occurred over the many, many decades. They also didn't have indoor plumbing back then as things change (unless you are in SF apparently). None of which has anything to do with the idea of mob rule, which was the actual topic. Your 3/5 complaint has not been an issue since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, over 150 years ago. You can make the pitch that it really wasn't "fixed" until the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but that's still almost six decades ago. It is a fascinating topic of history, just not the one your original video was addressing, so no actual need to include it.
Hardly. The issues that it addresses will always exist regardless of whether there are 1K or 1B voting. We can agree to disagree and all is well my man.
Like I argued with bluetoe... in NO OTHER election process is it needed or used or even considered. Governors, mayors, sheriffs, any executive office. Republicans still manage to win those elections despite the "unfairness of urban voting populations" or tyranny of the majority. They'll have to adapt and reform their presidential platform, that's all.
And, eventually, they will find away around it.
I think it's a bad idea to predicate our choice of leaders on the actions of an unrepresentative sample of voters from a small number of states.
That this small sample is also arguably the stupidest among us makes it even worse.
All that said, I'm glad that Pennsylvania is a battleground state. It's not small. It's not rural. It's not "right to work." It's not an evangelical stronghold. And it's fairly diverse. Which means the issues of most of America can't be totally ignored.
While not political, some will find this video about Pennsylvania interesting.
While not political, some will find this video about Pennsylvania interesting.
really? You're a state. See, I just did it...and it's as meaningless as it is when you say a county is a state. Counties are not like states in the sense that States are States, but I'm fine with whatever fantasy you want to create about that, silly as it might be. Counties and States compare only in that they are designated geopolitical entities with borders separating them from adjacent geopolitical entities. Counties have their own administrative systems but they don't make their own laws. The biggest difference is that counties are created to administratively carry out what the State requires while existing States created a Union wherein the cooperative coalition was a collective advantage in world existence to each member. Each state was free to make its own laws as long as those laws did not counter the Constitution and Federal power. Basically, a State operated as a separate entity with its own powers. A county does not.
"And, they don't need any electoral college to attain the diversity."
The EC does not exist to attain or deny diversity. The EC exists to represent the states and shun the dangers of a simple majority in national elections. The problem with a popular vote was well considered in the video you provided. A state, being sovereign, can institute whatever selection structure it cares to for selecting its electors, but those electors act on the popular vote within the State. What's the problem?.
Just for S&G, imagine if States had an EC as well, with each county selecting its own electors. You might end up seeing less overdevelopment and a return to the perfect balance of rural and urban population that North Carolina was once lauded for having, instead of the ever-increasing urbanization and disparity of population and wealth that exists today between city and country......and the ongoing degradation of what has made NC the coolest State in the Union.
that's tyranny of the majority within a State, indicating that it's the State that is being represented. And the arguments for the States to be represented in a national election have already been well made.
This is about a national election. What 'much more impactful protections against "Tyranny of the majority" ' exist that pertain to a national election.
Cute but awry argument you present. You seem to forget that while repub votes are discarded in Cali., dem votes are similarly discarded elsewhere. The votes lost or gained in any particular State don't tell the story you want to tell.
Counties, like states, make their own laws. They can't be in direct violation to a state law... or a national law. But, they do make their own laws. Same with states... they cannot (or aren't supposed to) make laws that violate federal/national laws.
Thanks for admitting the EC isn't necessary. Much appreciated. Imagine IF the states would have it, it would be great... but, they don't. Guess what? That's the whole point. Like I said initially, wherever the money/wealth goes, that's where the governance will be, sooner or later.
I knew and anyone else with a brain knows. I am strongly in favor of democracy. I'm in favor of the form of democracy we have, and not a mob rule sort that the simple-minded whine like children about not having whenever they are afraid of not getting their way.
That being said, thinking people know that any democratic structure itself is often antithetical to good rule. Democracy isn't about good rule as much as it's about freedom and fairness. I agree with whoever said that the best rule is a really good dictator. Catching a really good one is the problem there. I think it was long-ago Poland that asked someone from another country to step in and become their dictator in order to overstep the sort of factional, self-defeating political warfare we encounter. And that ended up being a good thing for them, kind of like hiring the best executive you can from outside to run your company. But we choose our measure of freedom over having the best rule, and we reject pure mob rule democracy in order to keep that measure of freedom and avoid the worst kind of rule.
no, they don't make their own laws as States do, which of course is what I was suggesting. They make by-laws and rules and regulations.
I would like it if you C&P'd where I said an EC isn't necessary, although of course it is not. It isn't necessary to have an election every four years. It isn't necessary to have a democracy. What is or isn't necessary is beside the point. The point being not what is necessary but what is best considering our kind of confederacy..
I always shake my head when you dwell on the fact that money talks and bullshit walks. Why don't you just go outside at night and yell at the moon for waxing and waning? Because all you're doing is yelling at human nature, and yelling at it isn't going to change it. The best we can do is channel the best traits to our best advantage, and keep the worst traits under control. Which is exactly why we have an EC. instead of the mob.
Similar threads
