Herm @ 29/11/2018 12:13

Wikey Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too? Women have only had the right to vote in the civilized parts of the world for like, 100 years or something lol. We're getting there, one generation at a time.

Not only women, but most men couldn't vote 100 years ago either. Also yeah, Herm's description of his country is pretty much what you hear about every country which has proportional representation. There are more parties, which is good, but it comes with the downside that they almost never form a majority, and therefore nothing really ever gets done. Which I suppose could be a strength or a weakness depending on how you look at it!

Also I've just realised that I've been assuming that those who want to abolish the electoral college want to replace it with a proportional representative system of some sort. When you may instead want everything to be decided by popular vote? You can't have a system like that unless it's a winner takes all kind of deal. Or do you in fact want proportional representation, meaning each party gets an amount of seats corresponding to the percentage of the vote they receive?

If PR is what you are after, then honestly it might be better to do away with your current system entirely and start again on a European model.

JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:17

I wasn't trying to invalidate their ideas, I was just trying to say that things change. Ideas people may have had back when our country was founded were or may be outdated now. The way Congress is set up was designed before there was such a disproportion between city/country dwellers and maybe it's time to re-think that idea. Just like it was time to re-think many other things along the way - including allowing women to vote, etc.

Things do change, but not always for the better. I feel like you are making another false comparison here. An idea isn't wrong because it's old either. There are many old ideas that we still stand by, because they are good and they work. I'm not saying you shouldn't criticise these things of course, I just don't think that's a good reason. You seem to be conflating old bad ideas with old ideas.

JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:17

Also, I guess I'm just not into the idea that each state should have equal representation because of land mass. Land does not vote. It gives some people more of a voice and that's not fair. We have such corruption going on in this country right now partially because of systems which are, imo antiquated and need to be re-vamped.

But how do you propose to give those people in the less populated parts of the country a voice under your preferred system? I don't think that's something that can be brushed aside.

I personally think that you need a lot more devolved government. More state autonomy, less focus on the federal government to solve all your problems. The US is such a big country, it's silly to give more an more power to Washington imo. Hell, I want more local government over here in the UK too. London is so out of touch with the rest of the country, so I can't imagine what it's like over there

JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:06

Where did I say that?

[/QUOTE]

81% of the population should be able to decide what happens in the country. It should be by popular vote.[/QUOTE]
^

Mike @ 29/11/2018 13:03

Herm @ 29/11/2018 12:13 Wikey Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too? Women have only had the right to vote in the civilized parts of the world for like, 100 years or something lol. We're getting there, one generation at a time. Not only women, but most men couldn't vote 100 years ago either. Also yeah, Herm's description of his country is pretty much what you hear about every country which has proportional representation. There are more parties, which is good, but it comes with the downside that they almost never form a majority, and therefore nothing really ever gets done. Which I suppose could be a strength or a weakness depending on how you look at it! Also I've just realised that I've been assuming that those who want to abolish the electoral college want to replace it with a proportional representative system of some sort. When you may instead want everything to be decided by popular vote? You can't have a system like that unless it's a winner takes all kind of deal. Or do you in fact want proportional representation, meaning each party gets an amount of seats corresponding to the percentage of the vote they receive? If PR is what you are after, then honestly it might be better to do away with your current system entirely and start again on a European model. JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:17 I wasn't trying to invalidate their ideas, I was just trying to say that things change. Ideas people may have had back when our country was founded were or may be outdated now. The way Congress is set up was designed before there was such a disproportion between city/country dwellers and maybe it's time to re-think that idea. Just like it was time to re-think many other things along the way - including allowing women to vote, etc. Things do change, but not always for the better. I feel like you are making another false comparison here. An idea isn't wrong because it's old either. There are many old ideas that we still stand by, because they are good and they work. I'm not saying you shouldn't criticise these things of course, I just don't think that's a good reason. You seem to be conflating old bad ideas with old ideas. JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:17 Also, I guess I'm just not into the idea that each state should have equal representation because of land mass. Land does not vote. It gives some people more of a voice and that's not fair. We have such corruption going on in this country right now partially because of systems which are, imo antiquated and need to be re-vamped. But how do you propose to give those people in the less populated parts of the country a voice under your preferred system? I don't think that's something that can be brushed aside. I personally think that you need a lot more devolved government. More state autonomy, less focus on the federal government to solve all your problems. The US is such a big country, it's silly to give more an more power to Washington imo. Hell, I want more local government over here in the UK too. London is so out of touch with the rest of the country, so I can't imagine what it's like over there

There are a whole new set of issues with that. Look at the Pot issue in the US. Your state can allow you to make a killing selling legal pot, but you can't put it in a bank because they fall under the federal laws.

There are good things that come from it, though. Like anti-discrimination laws.

JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:17

I wasn't trying to invalidate their ideas, I was just trying to say that things change. Ideas people may have had back when our country was founded were or may be outdated now. The way Congress is set up was designed before there was such a disproportion between city/country dwellers and maybe it's time to re-think that idea. Just like it was time to re-think many other things along the way - including allowing women to vote, etc. Also, I guess I'm just not into the idea that each state should have equal representation because of land mass. Land does not vote. It gives some people more of a voice and that's not fair. We have such corruption going on in this country right now partially because of systems which are, imo antiquated and need to be re-vamped.

The idea that each state should have an equal representation doesn't have anything to do with actual landmass or size. It has to do with this country being a union of individual states that form together to be a united country. Which people are you referring to that have more of a voice that is unfair? And how is giving each state equal representation in the Senate, which accounts for 1/2 of 1/3 of the governmental structure, unfair in any way? If you took away that equal representation, would you not be getting rid of the smaller state's voice altogether, since they'd never be on equal footing with the larger population centers? How is that fair?

Mike @ 29/11/2018 14:03

I personally think that you need a lot more devolved government. More state autonomy, less focus on the federal government to solve all your problems. The US is such a big country, it's silly to give more an more power to Washington imo. Hell, I want more local government over here in the UK too. London is so out of touch with the rest of the country, so I can't imagine what it's like over there

Oh shit! Wikey is a Republican! (:

Uh oh!

I am a certified libtard according to the latest political test I did, but I suppose they aren't the most accurate of things

Also, someone derepped me! For voicing muh opinions. Not cool!!

So I compared the population in California and Michigan, California seems to house 40 million people and Michigan seems to house 10 million people.

Wouldn't it make sense to give a larger state more representation over a smaller state? The people in the larger states would feel disenfranchised because their votes would matter less?

Although, if Europe was a country and Sweden was a state, I would probably not like it if some other countries started to dictate our laws and where our money goes, but then again, creating a United States of Europe would probably not be a good idea.

But, if Europe was a united country, having all those eastern european countries set the stage would be weird as hell, and not preferable.

Timmah @ 29/11/2018 14:43

JJ @ 29/11/2018 12:17 I wasn't trying to invalidate their ideas, I was just trying to say that things change. Ideas people may have had back when our country was founded were or may be outdated now. The way Congress is set up was designed before there was such a disproportion between city/country dwellers and maybe it's time to re-think that idea. Just like it was time to re-think many other things along the way - including allowing women to vote, etc. Also, I guess I'm just not into the idea that each state should have equal representation because of land mass. Land does not vote. It gives some people more of a voice and that's not fair. We have such corruption going on in this country right now partially because of systems which are, imo antiquated and need to be re-vamped. The idea that each state should have an equal representation doesn't have anything to do with actual landmass or size. It has to do with this country being a union of individual states that form together to be a united country. Which people are you referring to that have more of a voice that is unfair? And how is giving each state equal representation in the Senate, which accounts for 1/2 of 1/3 of the governmental structure, unfair in any way? If you took away that equal representation, would you not be getting rid of the smaller state's voice altogether, since they'd never be on equal footing with the larger population centers? How is that fair?

I feel like I'm just repeating myself and you're just repeating yourself. I'm fine with a lot of things being de-federalized so states can be more independent, but when it comes to representing Congress - in both the House and the Senate - I think the representation should be by population. A smaller state by population is small because there are less people so yes, they should have less of a voice.

Mike @ 29/11/2018 14:03

Things do change, but not always for the better. I feel like you are making another false comparison here. An idea isn't wrong because it's old either. There are many old ideas that we still stand by, because they are good and they work. I'm not saying you shouldn't criticise these things of course, I just don't think that's a good reason. You seem to be conflating old bad ideas with old ideas.

Yes, I realize an idea isn't wrong because it's old. That's not what I was saying either. I was saying just because it was formed by our forefathers doesn't make it right. I believe in the constitution and I do stand by many old ideas. It's not a false comparison - it was a point to say.... Just because our forefathers did it or said it, doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it in 2018 and determine whether it's still a good idea.

Mike @ 29/11/2018 20:03

Herm @ 29/11/2018 12:13 Wikey Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too? Women have only had the right to vote in the civilized parts of the world for like, 100 years or something lol. We're getting there, one generation at a time. Not only women, but most men couldn't vote 100 years ago either. Also yeah, Herm's description of his country is pretty much what you hear about every country which has proportional representation. There are more parties, which is good, but it comes with the downside that they almost never form a majority, and therefore nothing really ever gets done. Which I suppose could be a strength or a weakness depending on how you look at it!

Nah, you can still get things done. You just don't get the campaign promises, but you shouldn't expect a candidate to deliver all his/her promises because realistically, if they don't get a majority on their own, they can't expect to deliver on all their promises and they have to compromise.

Although, some parties are more inclined to work with each other over other parties.

We did run into the problem you're talking about this election.

Nothing has been happening since the election, since the traditionally right wing and left wing parties can't form a majority on their own lol. No one wants to cooperate with the two fringe parties on the far right and far left. So yeah.

I, for one, am happy that "I am big, you are small, so you get no say" is not how our country works. But, perhaps that is just me.

Timmah @ 29/11/2018 15:04

I, for one, am happy that "I am big, you are small, so you get no say" is not how our country works. But, perhaps that is just me.

I'm with you.
And like you said, it's only 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government. The people in the urban areas are represented by population in most ways.

While I think turning a huge chunk of the country into a disenfranchised enemy is not a good idea.

I could see some changes to the electoral college being a good thing.

That said, before any of those changes are made. Term limits and eliminating the impact of PACS/ SIG's, etc on governmental decisions would need to be done.

If those things aren't done, you could just draw names out of a hat for all of the offices and end up right where we are.