• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
The fairest and truest democracy has to be embedded in the will of the People. The electoral college is an impediment to true democracy and needs to be abolished. Only the true will of a plurality of people can result in true democracy and equality. Also, as far as I'm concerned the 'Constitution' is an organic document and was meant to be such. You cannot fit a square peg in a round hole and that is exactly what happens when the world has moved past the noble intentions of the US Constitution. It needs to change with progress and applicability. Again these are just my views and not intended to cause distress in pro constitutionalists.

This country is not a true democracy.
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
Your also shrinking the representation of other states because without an electoral college, only a few states will determine the outcome of an election and less people's votes would matter as you would eliminate small counties in every state. At that point, only the populated counties would matter. The EC is there so every state and county has a say. It's weird how the Electoral College was fine and nobody had an issue with it..... until the democrats lost a Presidential election. I'm neither Democrat or Republican but the constant crying by the democrats is ridiculous.

I do agree that DC & PR should have a vote and find it very odd how DC & PR never had their votes matter though they are apart of the United States. Their votes should be accounted for just like everyone else's.

Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting these areas cuz they are not important to the vote. Rural people would live under the thumb of urbanites. Also PR and DC votes do count but I believe its like 1 or maybe 2 elecrtoral votes. They just don't have house or senate representation.
 

52520Andrew

Pro Bowler
I thought I was pretty clear that certain areas would consistently run the country. We are not a small country.



Well I guess that would have to also include areas like the Mariana Islands and Guam. They vote too and yes PR had a chance and refused statehood.
Wouldn't be against those areas being states either if they want to. I mean we already have Hawaii as a state right? And there is a big difference between voting and actually having representation in congress. You aren't telling me you think DC shouldn't have someone in congress to represent them are you?
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
Last time I checked, we were founded on the idea that all men were created equal. I assume you take great pride in this country and what it was founded on right?

A true democracy is run completely by the population. That means every law. Would you really want that?
 

52520Andrew

Pro Bowler
Your also shrinking the representation of other states because without an electoral college, only a few states will determine the outcome of an election and less people's votes would matter as you would eliminate small counties in every state. At that point, only the populated counties would matter. The EC is there so every state and county has a say. It's weird how the Electoral College was fine and nobody had an issue with it..... until the democrats lost a Presidential election. I'm neither Democrat or Republican but the constant crying by the democrats is ridiculous.

I do agree that DC & PR should have a vote and find it very odd how DC & PR never had their votes matter though they are apart of the United States. Their votes should be accounted for just like everyone else's.
Yeah the electoral college stuff I can go both ways on. I think traditionally it is something that usually doesn't have a huge impact outside a couple elections very recently. Plus it has done a well enough job in the past and Dems arguing against it do come off as sore losers. But I will argue that we already have that with the electoral college. No one's vote in Maryland matters that much because this is a deep blue state(sure Hogan but he is a moderate Republican and certainly anti-Trump). And the whole situation you are talking about with people in rural areas not having their vote matter is true now in all but a handful of battleground states for everyone.

Also DC has 3 electoral votes in the presidential election but has no representation in congress.
 

52520Andrew

Pro Bowler
A true democracy is run completely by the population. That means every law. Would you really want that?
To be frank, it is hard to be worse than what we have right now from both sides.

But that is not the point. The point is that every vote would count the same for everyone. A vote for president in Wyoming is worth 3.735 times as much as one from California. I am not going to argue against people that would like every vote from every person to count the same.
 

Dom McRaven

Hall of Famer
That's the thing, do we wait for it to become a serious issue before addressing it? Or do we nip it early?

In my eyes, if we wait for it to become a serious issue before addressing could be problematic.
I hear you on that because I don't like being reactive. However, I will say this. I wouldn't mind it for those who physically can't work or felons who companies wouldn't touch with a 50-feet pole.

No never have nor never will nip it no matter what. Accountants are suppose to be very smart from what I hear.
It depends on the form of accountant. Without going into too much detail about my work, I primarily deal with payroll and invoicing clients for the work that the company I work for does.
 

Ellicottraven

Ravens Ring of Honor
Your also shrinking the representation of other states because without an electoral college, only a few states will determine the outcome of an election and less people's votes would matter as you would eliminate small counties in every state. At that point, only the populated counties would matter. The EC is there so every state and county has a say. It's weird how the Electoral College was fine and nobody had an issue with it..... until the democrats lost a Presidential election. I'm neither Democrat or Republican but the constant crying by the democrats is ridiculous.

I do agree that DC & PR should have a vote and find it very odd how DC & PR never had their votes matter though they are apart of the United States. Their votes should be accounted for just like everyone else's.
As much as I see your point of view, I would rather the majority of people's votes count much more than regional representation. In a weird way what you profess would actually mean one person's vote is more weighty than another's in densely populated areas. That isn't fair or democratic at all. I would rather have the person with the plurality of votes become President vs a plurality of states where a mind set is vastly different from the majority actually determines the outcome of an election. Conversely if you must keep the electoral college alive and well, then each state must only have the exact multiple of its population as its electoral vote tally. As an example, if the US population is 350MM and it counts for 538 Electoral college votes, then if a particular state has 35M people residing in it, then it should count for 54 Electoral college votes and so on and so forth. Just my thoughts on it if Electoral college must stay.
 

Inqui

Pro Bowler
As much as I see your point of view, I would rather the majority of people's votes count much more than regional representation. In a weird way what you profess would actually mean one person's vote is more weighty than another's in densely populated areas. That isn't fair or democratic at all. I would rather have the person with the plurality of votes become President vs a plurality of states where a mind set is vastly different from the majority actually determines the outcome of an election. Conversely if you must keep the electoral college alive and well, then each state must only have the exact multiple of its population as its electoral vote tally. As an example, if the US population is 350MM and it counts for 538 Electoral college votes, then if a particular state has 35M people residing in it, then it should count for 54 Electoral college votes and so on and so forth. Just my thoughts on it if Electoral college must stay.
I'm actually a huge fan of the French system. In the first round anyone can run, and if no one gets 50% in that round (and iirc no one ever has) the top two go to the second round, where it's a straight majority. It means the candidates don't have to jostle for the extreme sides of their party to have a proper shot (like you saw with the Republicans in 2016 and you're seeing with the Democrats here). Then in the second round it's all about appealing to as many people as possible, so people who prove particularly divisive tend to get filtered out and the people whose candidates lost in the first round can't really complain or play "spoiler". As a result, candidates basically have to pass through two filters that deliberately work in different ways.

So in 2016 it might have been Bernie, Hillary, Donald, Jeb and Ted. Out of those five, you tend to get two or three stand out but they have to do it on their own merits against a more packed field. The top two out of those would then have to get as much of the country behind them as possible.

I understand the fear some have of a few cities dictating to the rest of the country but this is pretty overstated (not to mention that, like I've already said, the power of the president is pretty overstated as it is). The top 100 cities (including the mighty Spokane, WA - population 219,000) combined account for 19.8% of the population. The top 300 (now including Rialto, CA - which at population 105,000 is about the size of my home city, which gets laughed at even in New Zealand for being small) make up 28.6% of the vote. You can't win any kind of population-based vote by ignoring 81% of the electorate (nor can you win by ignoring 72% of it). But ironically enough, with the electoral college you can actually become president with only 22% of the vote if you focus on the right states. If you were to start your own country from scratch, there's no way you'd choose a system that allowed for a quirk like that.

If the goal is to get candidates to move around the country the results are (at best) questionable there too. I'll have to dig the research up again but when people have studied this, the data shows that the candidates basically spend all their time in Ohio and Florida plus a small handful of states where the vote may be close. And as you say (and @52520Andrew says), if the goal is to not focus too much power in dense areas it's inadvertently or otherwise caused the opposite, where the vote of someone in Rhode Island counts for three votes of someone in Texas. Not to mention that the way the Senate is made up already acts as a check against proportional representation (and assuming that's a bad thing is already a pretty big leap).
 
Last edited:

Inqui

Pro Bowler
To me, I just don't like the idea of being offered a set amount when there's a possibility to make more. I work as an accountant and while I don't make boatloads of money or anything like that, I make over $1,000 a week. Now, if automation becomes a serious issue (or WHEN it becomes a serious issue rather), then I'll consider it...
For what it's worth that's the point of a UBI - it doesn't disincentivise looking for work if you'e already on something so its aim is to be a floor not a ceiling. It means you can get that $1000 a month and still get your more than $1000 from work - but you also have the option to dial it back a bit and spend more time with your family or reskilling or whatever you want to do (hell, I'd imagine a surprising amount of people use the security to try and start a business). And it offers financial security to people who otherwise wouldn't have it for the reasons you mentioned and that an increasing amount of those new jobs are fairly new "gig economy" jobs with often scratchy and inconsistent pay (which in turn stifles economic growth because wages have largely stagnated as costs have risen so people have less money to spend).

Like I say if I were king of the world it's probably not something I'd implement. But with that said, the idea will keep popping up around the world for a while to come and there's been a lot more thought put into the idea than one might be forgiven for thinking. One caveat that I'd put in though is that it would have to be indexed below minimum wage (a lot of leftys don't like that but meh).
 
Last edited:

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
To be frank, it is hard to be worse than what we have right now from both sides.

But that is not the point. The point is that every vote would count the same for everyone. A vote for president in Wyoming is worth 3.735 times as much as one from California. I am not going to argue against people that would like every vote from every person to count the same.

Then we should dissolve the states and just become a govt. Right now as we have it NYC controls NY and Chicago completely controls Illinois. People that live in the highly populated areas should have the complete say even tho their laws may not work in rural areas. You dairy farmers must use the laws that we say. Period. Right now you want small dense areas to control everything. A complete democracy is tyranny. A complete democracy is communism.

Personally I believe even states should have an electoral college. Look at MD. Prince Georges, Montgomery Co and Balt city control it all here. Should western Md be able to break off if they want to become a separate state or Illinois from Chi or even break Cali into 3 states.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
Then we should dissolve the states and just become a govt. Right now as we have it NYC controls NY and Chicago completely controls Illinois. People that live in the highly populated areas should have the complete say even tho their laws may not work in rural areas. You dairy farmers must use the laws that we say. Period. Right now you want small dense areas to control everything. A complete democracy is tyranny. A complete democracy is communism.

Personally I believe even states should have an electoral college. Look at MD. Prince Georges, Montgomery Co and Balt city control it all here. Should western Md be able to break off if they want to become a separate state or Illinois from Chi or even break Cali into 3 states.

right now you want a handful of people in low-populated areas unaffected by the issues of high-population areas (naturally issues which affect more people) to have political control over those people in high-population areas and cities

a complete democracy is not tyranny at all - the electoral college can create tyranny, proportional representation and democracy cannot
 

Dom McRaven

Hall of Famer
For what it's worth that's the point of a UBI - it doesn't disincentivise looking for work if you'e already on something so its aim is to be a floor not a ceiling. It means you can get that $1000 a month and still get your more than $1000 from work - but you also have the option to dial it back a bit and spend more time with your family or reskilling or whatever you want to do (hell, I'd imagine a surprising amount of people use the security to try and start a business). And it offers financial security to people who otherwise wouldn't have it for the reasons you mentioned and that an increasing amount of those new jobs are fairly new "gig economy" jobs with often scratchy and inconsistent pay (which in turn stifles economic growth because wages have largely stagnated as costs have risen so people have less money to spend).

Like I say if I were king of the world it's probably not something I'd implement. But with that said, the idea will keep popping up around the world for a while to come and there's been a lot more thought put into the idea than one might be forgiven for thinking. One caveat that I'd put in though is that it would have to be indexed below minimum wage (a lot of leftys don't like that but meh).
See, to me, I disagree with your statement of it not being disincentivizing for those looking for work. People already abuse the welfare system and food stamps as it is. You (not literally you) mean to tell me that if you give these people $1,000 on a monthly basis, there wouldn't be a disincentive to work? I think so. To me, the idea of UBI sounds cool, but I'm sure that means more government costs which is the last thing the government needs is more debt.
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
right now you want a handful of people in low-populated areas unaffected by the issues of high-population areas (naturally issues which affect more people) to have political control over those people in high-population areas and cities

a complete democracy is not tyranny at all - the electoral college can create tyranny, proportional representation and democracy cannot

So a complete democracy is not tyranny. If 50.1% of the people don't want to ban AR 15's then you would be fine with that? A complete democracy could ban freedom of religion or just ban it altogether if they choose too. They are the majority right.

A lot of you guys on this forum don't seem to realize we are NOT a democracy. We have democratic principle for a republic form of govt. Why do you guys not notice I constantly harp on the 10th amendment?

Basically if you look at it everything we fought for to gain our freedom from Britain lefties want to reverse with higher taxes and a very strong govt.
 
The fairest and truest democracy has to be embedded in the will of the People. The electoral college is an impediment to true democracy and needs to be abolished. Only the true will of a plurality of people can result in true democracy and equality. Also, as far as I'm concerned the 'Constitution' is an organic document and was meant to be such. You cannot fit a square peg in a round hole and that is exactly what happens when the world has moved past the noble intentions of the US Constitution. It needs to change with progress and applicability. Again these are just my views and not intended to cause distress in pro constitutionalists.
A concept like the electoral college is all well and good, until it doesn't give you the result you want.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
So a complete democracy is not tyranny. If 50.1% of the people don't want to ban AR 15's then you would be fine with that? A complete democracy could ban freedom of religion or just ban it altogether if they choose too. They are the majority right.

A lot of you guys on this forum don't seem to realize we are NOT a democracy. We have democratic principle for a republic form of govt. Why do you guys not notice I constantly harp on the 10th amendment?

Basically if you look at it everything we fought for to gain our freedom from Britain lefties want to reverse with higher taxes and a very strong govt.

"Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

nothing there indicates to me that the 50.1% of the people can take over the country

and you'd be surprised about how fine i am with democracy - ive never been on the winning side of an election ive had the chance to vote in - i have not once voted for the option that won the election - its devastating when you believe in something that much and lose every time - but you respect the results (as long as you trust their fair administration - trust has to be a key tenet in a democracy)

and you're using weird examples because AR15s are more likely to be banned in a proper democracy by your definition (without elected government representatives i assume) and freedom of religion is unlikely to be banned ever in a democracy that's actually democratic in that sense

you do harp on about the 10th amendment a lot and you make this claim that you are not a democracy a lot but what i dont get is why you wouldnt want that to change beyond this fear that dairy farmers wont get to control urban people and that its just because thats what the constitution has always said
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
"Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

nothing there indicates to me that the 50.1% of the people can take over the country

and you'd be surprised about how fine i am with democracy - ive never been on the winning side of an election ive had the chance to vote in - i have not once voted for the option that won the election - its devastating when you believe in something that much and lose every time - but you respect the results (as long as you trust their fair administration - trust has to be a key tenet in a democracy)

and you're using weird examples because AR15s are more likely to be banned in a proper democracy by your definition (without elected government representatives i assume) and freedom of religion is unlikely to be banned ever in a democracy that's actually democratic in that sense

you do harp on about the 10th amendment a lot and you make this claim that you are not a democracy a lot but what i dont get is why you wouldnt want that to change beyond this fear that dairy farmers wont get to control urban people and that its just because thats what the constitution has always said

Clinton won 57 counties out of the 3,141 that are in the USA. If you eliminated the vote count in Cali Trump would have won by popular vote, That's an awful lot of strength for a state.

Ok in case you didn't know these states run their federal elections so to provide fairness we should have voter ID's. Dems are 1000% against this. Why is this and why should I trust them in their strongholds? Remember the Fla elections in Broward Co? California has enacted a law called ballot harvesting where they actually go to your house to pick up votes. Whats saying they're not paying the residents to vote democratic? Whats saying they're not disposing certain votes? This might show why the big turnover in Cali for house seats.

Trump knew how to play the game. Clinton didn't. Its the road to 270. The Democrats have won the presidency several times using the electoral college. Its firmly in the Constitution. The people in the U.S knows this and so does every candidate.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
Trump knew how to play the game. Clinton didn't. Its the road to 270. The Democrats have won the presidency several times using the electoral college. Its firmly in the Constitution. The people in the U.S knows this and so does every candidate.

in every single instance that a president has won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, the winner of that election was the republican so its pretty tricky to say that this works both ways...

probably says more about where the bias in the system lies because of state lines and population voting tendencies by demographic etc.
 

52520Andrew

Pro Bowler
Then we should dissolve the states and just become a govt. Right now as we have it NYC controls NY and Chicago completely controls Illinois. People that live in the highly populated areas should have the complete say even tho their laws may not work in rural areas. You dairy farmers must use the laws that we say. Period. Right now you want small dense areas to control everything. A complete democracy is tyranny. A complete democracy is communism.

Personally I believe even states should have an electoral college. Look at MD. Prince Georges, Montgomery Co and Balt city control it all here. Should western Md be able to break off if they want to become a separate state or Illinois from Chi or even break Cali into 3 states.
The population in Illinois is over 12 million and the population in Chicago is under 3. If people outside Chicago really wanted to, it would be easy for them to overrule the people in Chicago. More people live in the state of New York than the city as well. I think the biggest problem in Maryland is gerrymandering which has limited them to 1 republican in the house. I am sure the Dems have played dirty with state seats as well. Granted Republicans did a ton of this nationally when they took control in 2010 because they could but at the end of the day that is what motivates both sides on this issue and why I don't take Republicans or Democrats all that seriously on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top