Popular vote ramblings

[theflashunc]

And yet it is the population of these coastal hubs that advocate for social safety net programs, free or reduced cost college education and other programs that would really help those in the flyover states and are fought against so viciously by the elected officials of the very same flyover states.

It's almost like cultural wedge issues, systemic racism, and a deeply ingrained mistrust of the government are all a slurry of messages used to continue to get votes from those regularly voting against their own self-interest.

Weird.

[zachateseverything]

We're forgetting Texas exists now?

I was trying to forget about Texas. Way to remind us. Jerk.

[Dallas Tex]

[QUOTE=theflashunc;947599........those regularly voting against their own self-interest.

Weird.[/QUOTE]

Can you imagine another POV that you may not agree with where people woukd rather remain independent and free of government dependence ? Folks may have their own opinions that government dependency is not in their own self interest?

[Dallas Tex]

I was trying to forget about Texas. Way to remind us. Jerk.

Why would you want to forget about Texas ?

[theflashunc]

Can you imagine another POV that you may not agree with where people woukd rather remain independent and free of government dependence ? Folks may have their own opinions that government dependency is not in their own self interest?

Sure. But then don't gripe about someone trying to take away your Medicaid or Medicare. Don't take Social Security. Don't complain about a government not paving roads or investing in infrastructure where you live. Don't complain about clean water and clean air and all that the EPA and OSHA and a laundry list of government agencies do to ensure we eat food that isn't poisoned and breathe air that won't kill us.

If someone wants to believe the John Wayne fallacy that it's just bootstrap pulling and grit alone that will get the rugged man to the finish line, great. Just don't drag the rest of us down who believe in the "promote the general Welfare" portion of the Preamble is an important part of the role government plays in society.

None of us can do this alone as much as our myth making wants us to pretend otherwise.

[Dallas Tex]

Sure. But then don't gripe about someone trying to take away your Medicaid or Medicare. Don't take Social Security. Don't complain about a government not paving roads or investing in infrastructure where you live. Don't complain about clean water and clean air and all that the EPA and OSHA and a laundry list of government agencies do to ensure we eat food that isn't poisoned and breathe air that won't kill us.

If someone wants to believe the John Wayne fallacy that it's just bootstrap pulling and grit alone that will get the rugged man to the finish line, great. Just don't drag the rest of us down who believe in the "promote the general Welfare" portion of the Preamble is an important part of the role government plays in society.

None of us can do this alone as much as our myth making wants us to pretend otherwise.

Well you may be confused about what folks consider government dependency. Funding an army for national defense or funding highways and local roads is a long way from funding & enabling folks that choose not to support themselves.

[Will Neide]

If it hasn't already been mentioned, the current system is already a wonderful compromise of states rights and the will of the populace. Each state already has equal representation with 2 electors for the number of senators, and population representation with electors from the house representation. The very idea of a national popular vote goes against everything that went into creating the current government. Yes, the constitution allows for change to meet the times and current needs (think voting for senators instead of appointing them), but to sway from the electoral college altogether is exactly what the founding fathers did not want, and historically for good reason.

[BBB]

Why would you want to forget about Texas ?

Didn't it belong to Mexico and people just ignored immigration laws and migrated from the US? Man, those Mexicans should have built a wall...

[Dallas Tex]

Didn't it belong to Mexico and people just ignored immigration laws and migrated from the US? Man, those Mexicans should have built a wall...

No, before joining the US, Texas was its own country called the republic of Texas. Can I assume you went to government run public schools ?

[King Of Dirk]

Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him by forcing him to admit it?

[zachateseverything]

Why would you want to forget about Texas ?

because I'm not into urban sprawl.

[BBB]

No, before joining the US, Texas was its own country called the republic of Texas. Can I assume you went to government run public schools ?

And before that?

[vertical_doug]

You need to remember the origin of all of this is the Union of States. The State has always been the sovereign and much of the original Federalist Papers and Constitutional writings were trying to justify things at the Federal Level. Taxation, Money, Army/Navy. (why do we have an air force, I don't see it mentioned anywhere.)

Many of the Federalist Papers were concerned about conflict between the states and foreign influence. I admit the current occupant of the White House falls short of many of the qualities highlighted in Federalist 68 by Hamilton. You can try to have a constitutional amendment, but in reality, it'll never survive the needed state ratification.

It is better to focus on districts and gerrymandering. I think a change nationally to draw districts to be as competitive as possible will solve a lot of the problems. A large part of the problem are the two parties and party politics which yield the most extreme members thus making compromise impossible. (I think this is worse in the GOP, but it certainly exists in the Dems too. )

Unfortunately, our democracy has evolved into 'you can vote for anyone on the ballot, it just vested interests get to decide who is on the ballot.' Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but by and large, I think it reflects status quo of our democracy. By having competitive districts you end up with representative which can appeal to both sides and are willing to compromise.

There are a lot of people (generally on the "side" that lost the last presidential election in the 'States) who believe we should switch to a popular vote for national elections. This appears to be a product of the belief that at least two losing candidates would have been victors had we counted heads instead of electoral college numbers. They may be right.

But they may be wrong.

Much is made of the fact that HRC won California in 2016 by a little over four million votes. That's good, if you're an HRC supporter. What's even better, if you're an HRC supporter is that she got 100% of the electoral college votes in 2016. She won 61 to 39 in the raw vote, but got 100% of the votes that currently matter.

Little seems to be made of the fact that republican voters are completely disincentivized to vote in California under the current system. Why should they? The democrat will get all of the important votes anyway. But if each person's vote actually counted, would the margin be so great, or would the GOP be able to find another couple million people to get up and go vote?

To be fair and balanced, the same can be said for democrats; they'll win anyway, so the incentive to get up and vote isn't really there...maybe HRC would have gotten 10 million votes in CA instead of "only" 8 million. I don't know.

But if that's the case, aren't there an awful lot of red states where a lot of GOP voters also don't bother because it doesn't matter? Like KS, OK, MS, ND, SD, UT et cetera?

This isn't meant to be a defense or an indictment of the electoral college system. I get why it's there and why it was implemented. I just wonder if those who would cheer its demise might be careful what they ask for? Put another way: I'm interested to hear if you're a democrat (or at least a non-republican) and favor a popular vote. If that happens, and your horse gets walloped - what will you say then? Would you be able to accept the results of such an election? Conversely, if you're a republican, do you think your principles can compete on a national stage, or is your party's survival tied to the current system?


ETA: it may be that everyone would be more likely to participate in such a system. Win lose or draw, it may end up in better voter turnout. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[Dallas Tex]

And before that?

Before joining the US, texas was its own sovereign country for 10 years. help me understand what you're trying to get at.

[Dallas Tex]

because I'm not into urban sprawl.

Urban environments is where all the diversity happens. I thought all you good folk put a high value on such things?

[fortyfour]

Before joining the US, Texas was its own sovereign country for 10 years. help me understand what you're trying to get at.

I think what some are referencing is that Texas was technically part of Mexico from 1821-1836 just after Mexico gained their independence from Spain in 1821. In 1836, Texas declared independence from Mexico to become the Republic of Texas before it looked to Statehood in the U.S.

Read cliff notes here.

[Saab2000]

After years of hearing how the Alamo was a grossly overrated tourist trap I finally had the opportunity to visit a year ago or so on a layover. It was interesting and my partner in crime that day and I got a private lecture and history lesson from a tour guide on the history of Texas and I found it much more interesting and fascinating than I expected. Sometimes learning something new is worthwhile.

[vertical_doug]

Before joining the US, texas was its own sovereign country for 10 years. help me understand what you're trying to get at.

I think it was part of Mexico/Spain. Didn't John Wayne die there or something (Remember the Alamo)? I think Trump grew up a fan of John Wayne's Westerns. He has a hard time distinguishing between TV and reality, so maybe that is why he hates Mexico.

[zachateseverything]

Urban environments is where all the diversity happens. I thought all you good folk put a high value on such things?

Urban is fine. I don't like sprawl.

[guido]

Can you imagine another POV that you may not agree with where people woukd rather remain independent and free of government dependence ? Folks may have their own opinions that government dependency is not in their own self interest?

It is curious how the normal rights and privileges of citizenship of a modern democracy are viewed as dependencies. And while you are free to not avail yourself of said rights and privileges it is highly unfortunate that you would deprive those who could benefit from them.