Support NeoGAF

[Crayon]

That sucked. Maybe he sounded fine to people who are literate and engaged in the situation. But this tone and these signals are not going to reach the voters who stayed home. There needs to be emotional content. As a role model Obama gets top marks from me. As a president I'm not so sure.

 

[mrhyderager]

Uh, do you know what it refers to? I'm not sure you understand the conversation here, with no malice meant to you.

This is a common fucking theme from people who at best have antipathy toward the issues of black people. Voicing specific concerns about issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., gets a "stop trying to divide people" flippant response (or aggressive pushback from your typical right-wing Twitter user or YouTube commenter).

If you look at how Sanders campaigned, particularly when faced with black audiences or questioners, he always resorted back to talking about how awesome his economic policies are in general, and he struggled to talk specifically about how he would discuss issues like police brutality. Hillary Clinton, who we know by now is a historically shitty campaigner, did more to respond to the concerns of, say, black women in Flint than Bernie Sanders did.

This is because Sanders wants to specifically not really talk about these things - they turn off the white working class. The Democratic coalition was built on black and brown people having nowhere else to go and thus being aligned with white working class union members in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, but it was (and is) an uneasy alliance. For example, you have lots of white Democratic cross-over votes for Reagan in the '80s based on race-baiting about black people living high by not working and taking in Welfare.

I don't want to go back to that, but this is Bernie Sanders's argument, and it has been for years! Pre-election, there were articles where Bernie talks about the Democratic party's most important faction being white working class voters.

And before you say that you don't get the implication of black and brown people being pushed to the background, the fact that Sanders himself talks about "white working class voters" and not simply "working class voters" is a big clue.

Sanders hasn't shown shit to me or many other black folks here in 2016. I don't want to get too far away from the point of this thread because it brings out the racists like that one dude who keeps responding to me because he can't take an opposing opinion from a black person without going straight into his "angry white guy Twitter user" persona, but Sanders isn't the answer for me. I could hold my nose and vote for him, sure, but if we're going to have a white guy as the face of the party in the near-future, which I think is important, I need it to be a white guy that can talk to white working-class voters and let them know that while he hears their concerns, they're going to have to get over black and brown people having a prominent voice in the party's direction.

It turns out I misunderstood, and I think quite a few other people have as well. I've always been under the impression that Identity politics had much more to do with electing someone for their star power and because they made people feel excited instead of running on issues.

I apologize for that.

I still believe that Bernie gave far more time to groups like BLM and has spent far more of his life fighting for civil rights than most, especially Hillary. That's my perspective, though.

 

[oreomunsta]

I agree with everyone that the Electoral College has backfired on us. When something goes wrong, however, my first instinct is not to abolish it.

True, but a system where an individual's vote is outweighed by another's simply by their geographical location has unbalanced one of the fundamental tenets of democracy.

My country currently has a first past the post system, and I live in an area where I'm greatly, greatly outnumbered. I still vote out of civic duty, but damn, wouldn't it be nice if I could vote and have my microscopic sway of the election? With the current system, it doesn't matter if I vote or not

 

[Nibiru]

How do you come to that conclusion when he was saying to exact opposite?

Because the side that loses will always end up bitching about it. It's fine the way it is imo.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Probably would have asked the people in the crowd to knock him out and throw him out

Not true -- edit: this is the correct video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2FJep_CoL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYAgR57Q6dY

He loves people who faint the most

 

[digdug2k]

I don't give a fuck what the stated rules are. The stated rules are garbage.

Everyone has an idea of what voting means. Everyone understands what democracy means. Everyone understands what "rule of majority" means.

It's incredibly, incredibly counter intuitive that one side can decisively get more votes, millions more votes, and lose. I don't know how anyone accepts this. It's an ancient, outdated, purposeless idea that is only doing great harm and no good whatsoever

Well, the US isn't technically a democracy. But yeah, that's why these "the end of democracy as we know it!" posts are kinda dumb. We were never in one. What you're seeing is the result of not being in one. i.e. large segments on the country (more than half of it) isn't actually represented by its state or federal government at this point. "Democracy" (even on the state level where is does exist) is dead.

But the president doesn't have to/shouldn't be doing this investigation. The Senate and House should. The same stupid 10 million dollar investigations we spent on Benghazi should happen here. Every miniscule document that can be dug up on Trump should be dug up and all of them made available under FOIA requests. That's how you vindictively use this shit (it won't happen, because Democrats, no matter how hard they try, actually do believe in "unity" and "peaceful transition").

 

[Caja 117]

How do you gerrymander the electoral college? It's based on population and you can't redraw state lines like you do districts.

Gerrymandering to win on midterm elections to be able to change voting rules on their favor, is a process, and I also believe that gerrymandering made by the Rep since years ago is indirectly responsible for helping Trump.

 

[WorldStar]

dems never had an issue with the EC until it failed to work in their favor

simple as that

 

[Calamari41]

Did he say mele kalikimaka? Darn, if I'd been watching I would have actually understood that.

My decades of watching Christmas Vacation paid off

 

[Nafai1123]

Because the side that loses will always end up bitching about it. It's fine the way it is imo.

No, because there would no longer be a antiquated secondary system for people to bitch about. Will of the people, period.

 

[Jobbs]

If you live in California, you matter quantifiably less than someone who lives in, say, Kansas. Why? Everyone should matter equally

 

[mnz]

What is your opinion on the Senate?

There is a place where states can have disproportional power in a federal system and that is it.
But having the head of state be selected this way is crazy. Any other country would be called undemocratic.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Except it was the correct analogy. We all understand what voting means. If you and your friends vote on what movie to watch next you understand what that means. Likewise we understand what a score in a baseball game is. We intuitively understand that most votes = win... Except in America it doesn't mean that because hundreds of years ago people living in an entirely different time were afraid of direct democracy for no good reason.

This is still a shit analogy. Voting is not always a simple majority rule and the rules differ by every country, organization and situation. Some places have simple majority. Some places have double majority. Some places require supermajorities. Some places the supermajority is 55%. Sometimes it's 60%. Sometimes it's 2/3. And some places have electoral colleges.

Americans understand what voting means. It's a basic of 5th Grade civics. You vote in your state and an elector represents the outcome of the vote from your state. This is as much a known rule as baseball rules or how speed limits work.

There was a tumultuous history of democracy throughout the centuries anyways. It's not like they had "no good reason" to be concerned about it.

 

[Reeks]

Except it was the correct analogy. We all understand what voting means. If you and your friends vote on what movie to watch next you understand what that means. Likewise we understand what a score in a baseball game is. We intuitively understand that most votes = win... Except in America it doesn't mean that because hundreds of years ago people living in an entirely different time were afraid of direct democracy for no good reason.

Yes, yes, we understand how the EC works and why it was a good thing at conception. But we're highlighting the fact that it itself is problematic today. Equating one who is critical of the EC to a 'whining' sports team that didn't win a title doesn't work as an analogy. Everyone says we are 'whining' when earlier this year, Trump himself spoke about the very real pitfalls of the EC.

If ANYONE lost the election after winning millions more votes I'd say the system needs to change, regardless if they were my preferred candidate. It's absolute bunk.

Wait, so we agree?

 

[Inferno313]

dems never had an issue with the EC until it failed to work in their favor

simple as that

are you talking about 1876, 1888, 2000, or 2016?

 

[Goro Majima]

All this discussion about the Electoral College is kinda pointless because it'll never be anything more than a thought experiment. My understanding is that you'd have to get numerous Republican states on board to hit the 38 state requirement and pass a Constitutional Amendment to fix the system. It'd take nothing short of the death of the Republican Party to make that possible. It'd also require the Democrats to start taking back some of the state houses.

I believe we'll have universal healthcare and maybe even a UBI before we ever get rid of the Electoral College.

Hell I think it's more likely that Republicans will get control of 38 states and be able to rewrite the Constitution in their own image instead of the Electoral College ever going anywhere.

 

[Jobbs]

Wait, so we agree?

EC needs to go, if you agree, we agree

 

[Regulus Tera]

are you talking about 1876, 1888, 2000, or 2016?

He has a point, however, in saying democrats seldom bring the issue of the electoral college until after an election. This is not a point they talk outside of election cycles.

 

[plagiarize]

Because the side that loses will always end up bitching about it. It's fine the way it is imo.

Are you a rural voter?

Or a swing state voter?

I understand people not wanting their voting to count less than it currently does, but that doesn't make it *right*.

My vote should be worth the same as yours. We have the Senate and the House to ensure smaller states get represented. The executive branch is meant to represent all of America. And not in terms of the land mass, in terms of the people.

There is no good argument against 1 person 1 vote, majority wins for the President that I have heard.

As I've said in these threads, time and again, when remain lost the Brexit vote (who I fully supported) I accepted it. Remain got less votes. I didn't say 'Oh, we should change the rules to something where cities or areas with more immigrants should have more sway over rural areas that don't have immigrants' or some such nonsense.

When Bush won the popular vote in 04, I didn't bitch about it at all. When he lost it in 00, you bet I saw a problem with that.

When you've had special privilege, equality feels like an attack.

But it isn't. Whether you're a GOP voter in MA or a democratic voter in TX, deciding the president by popular vote means your vote would actually count, rather than counting for shit as it does right now.

 

[Jobbs]

He has a point, however, in saying democrats seldom bring the issue of the electoral college until after an election. This is not a point they talk outside of election cycles.

I've always thought the EC was dumb and pointless, but when a candidate loses after winning a whole bunch more votes it does highlight the issue again, sure

 

[PatThePassive]

EC needs to go, if you agree, we agree

Yeah if there is a better alternative completely agree.

 

[WorldStar]

are you talking about 1876, 1888, 2000, or 2016?

you're proving my point: they never bitched until after the results

where's all the uproar prior to the 2016 results? there was none. dems started complaining when things didn't go their way

 

[plagiarize]

All this discussion about the Electoral College is kinda pointless because it'll never be anything more than a thought experiment. My understanding is that you'd have to get numerous Republican states on board to hit the 38 state requirement and pass a Constitutional Amendment to fix the system. It'd take nothing short of the death of the Republican Party to make that possible. It'd also require the Democrats to start taking back some of the state houses.

I believe we'll have universal healthcare and maybe even a UBI before we ever get rid of the Electoral College.

Hell I think it's more likely that Republicans will get control of 38 states and be able to rewrite the Constitution in their own image instead of the Electoral College ever going anywhere.

It can be done without constitutional amendment. And we need much less than 38 states to get it done, but we absolutely need to win back some states, and of course, the states that we can most easily win back (the swing states) aren't about to sign up for something that gives them less focus.

So it's still a long shot, but it's not as long a shot.

Something like over ten states are already on board, and they only need enough states to represent an electoral college majority.

States can decide how their electors are picked, so the way it works, is you just need enough states to agree to give all their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. There's real legislation passed in actual states that will do just that if the states with similar legislation come to represent an electoral college majority.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/status

105 electoral votes to go. Still a long shot though.

 

[Jobbs]

Yeah if there is a better alternative completely agree.

IMO the better alternative is whoever gets more votes wins

 

[Reeks]

EC needs to go, if you agree, we agree

Ah I see. My problem with the baseball analogy was that it painted those critical of the EC as whiners and losers. The heavy-handedness of the language and the fact that we all understand how the EC works is why I was referring to it as a bad analogy. But I feel you now.

 

[bunbun777]

Here's a proposal, we don't put a president in office until two thirds of voters agree. Elections might take 4 years.

 

[GuyKazama]

Here's a proposal, we don't put a president in office until two thirds of voters agree. Elections might take 4 years.

Elections do take 4 years.

 

[Kilau]

I prefer the football analogy over the baseball analogy.

 

[Reeks]

Here's a proposal, we don't put a president in office until two thirds of voters agree. Elections might take 4 years.

The turnout for all possible voters isn't even two thirds

 

[PatThePassive]

IMO the better alternative is whoever gets more votes wins

This is where I disagree.

 

[ant_]

IMO the better alternative is whoever gets more votes wins

There is nothing inherently fair about majority rule. It, too, needs checks and balances. In some ways, majority rule could be potentially more dangerous for our nation.

 

[VivaciousSoul]

There is also this http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ although it too faces a partisan uphill climb.

Regardless I expect that demographics will be a problem for the gop eventually. How about that map that shows what the election result would be if only millennials voted.

The amount of electoral votes each state gets is supposed to be updated in 2020 right? I wonder at what point (keeping the same blue and red states from the 2016 map) how many people you would have to add to blue states to get to the point where the change in electoral votes overwhelms the red states.

 

[Reeks]

There is nothing inherently fair about majority rule. It, too, needs checks and balances. In some ways, majority rule could be potentially more dangerous for our nation.

Therein lies the rub.

 

[jelly]

I don't know what you expect him to say. He is suppose to be the voice of calm. The media just went for clicks and viewing figures off Trump tweets when there was clearly bigger issues and then they doubled down on Clinton emails. Obama isn't there to take pot shots and tell people the future is going to be shit even if he thinks so.

 

[bunbun777]

Elections do take 4 years.

I mean actually going to the voter booths, ha. So eight?

The turnout for all possible voters isn't even two thirds

Sure but I said two thirds of actual voters.

 

[Opto]

What do you want him to do? Lets be realistic

At least acknowledge the concern that a lot of people (and what he personally too) think. There's nothing positive coming from the upcoming cabinet unless you're a straight white male and own oil stock. He's the top level democrat in the nation and he was shooting out weak tea the entire conference, only furthering the image that democrats are a bunch of toothless losers, while the GOP basically defangs democrat power in NC.

 

[chillybright]

There is a place where states can have disproportional power in a federal system and that is it.
But having the head of state be selected this way is crazy. Any other country would be called undemocratic.

Senate is about states all have the same power though. It's the individuals in different states that have disproportional power as a result.

 

[ZOONAMI]

you're proving my point: they never bitched until after the results

where's all the uproar prior to the 2016 results? there was none. dems started complaining when things didn't go their way

Well, 2000 was a relative outlier given it hadn't happened in over 100 years. I felt it should have been disbanded after 2000 as it was a relic even then.

It happening again rightfully is making people question the system.

It it happens a third time in the next 2 elections the presidency isnt even a democracy at that point. It already isn't by design, but it has pretty much been aligned with the popular vote, outside of the last decade.

We don't have to be beholden to a system that doesn't work and isn't democratic just because it has been in place for so long. That's precisely part of the reason to get rid of it. As the country continues to increase in population, and mainly in metropolitan areas that lean democratic, it's only more likely to keep happening.

 

[Acorn]

There is nothing inherently fair about majority rule. It, too, needs checks and balances. In some ways, majority rule could be potentially more dangerous for our nation.

The most dangerous man for your country since Jackson lost the popular vote and won through the ec. Bush also, I believe that shows which is more dangerous.

Besides what is the point in the ec when their constitutional purpose will b realistically never be exercised in a meaningful way regardless of the election of a demagogue.

 

[Scrooged]

I have a really hard time believing that everyone would be a-okay with Trump's win if the electoral college wasn't a thing and he won by popular vote. People would be outraged like they were about Brexit saying that it's mob rule and most people are just dumb and can't be trusted with a vote for something so important.

 

[plagiarize]

Well, 2000 was a relative outlier given it hadn't happened in over 100 years. I felt it should have been disbanded after 2000 as it was a relic even then.

It happening again rightfully is making people question the system.

It it happens a third time in the next 2 elections the presidency isnt even a democracy at that point. It already isn't by design, but it has pretty much been aligned with the popular vote, outside of the last decade.

We don't have to be beholden to a system that doesn't work and isn't democratic just because it has been in place for so long. That's precisely part of the reason to get rid of it. As the country continues to increase in population, and mainly in metropolitan areas that lean democratic, it's only more likely to keep happening.

And if you look at the national popular vote site, you'll see states have been passing the appropriate legislation even during Obama's presidency. Heck, the majority of them.

Maybe people haven't been talking about it, but it's been slowly gaining support state to state since 2000. Yes there's renewed *focus* on it, but it hasn't gone away.

 

[PatThePassive]

At least acknowledge the concern that a lot of people (and what he personally too) think. There's nothing positive coming from the upcoming cabinet unless you're a straight white male and own oil stock. He's the top level democrat in the nation and he was shooting out weak tea the entire conference, only furthering the image that democrats are a bunch of toothless losers, while the GOP basically defangs democrat power in NC.

I don't know what you expect him to say. He is suppose to be the voice of calm. The media just went for clicks and viewing figures off Trump tweets when there was clearly bigger issues and then they doubled down on Clinton emails. Obama isn't there to take pot shots and tell people the future is going to be shit even if he thinks so.

Person above says it well.

He did address the Russia hacks as well.

Yeah, but it had some intricacies.

I need to find this old show about Rome I remember seeing a couple years ago Roman history is interesting

 

[AoM]

Didn't the Romans have a proper majority rules republic? That's a little more dated then the representative Republic

Yeah, but it had some intricacies.

 

[labx]

So.... Nothing happen, Obama didn't drop the bomb and Trump's getting away with murder.

 

[Polari]

lol that David Yankovich fraud is melting down on Twitter.

 

[Acorn]

I have a really hard time believing that everyone would be a-okay with Trump's win if the electoral college wasn't a thing and he won by popular vote. People would be outraged like they were about Brexit saying that it's mob rule and most people are just dumb and can't be trusted with a vote for something so important.

I don't think anyone is making that argument. Regardless of the system that puts someone like him in power it doesn't change the fact he is insanely unsuitable and potentially dangerous.

 

[m_shortpants]

So let me get this straight

The EC exists to counter the popular vote if a markedly unqualified individual wins

The EC will never counter the popular vote because of precedent and laws designed to punish faithless electors

Therefore, the EC doesn't serve it's intended purpose and is ultimately useless, even a hindrance to actual democracy

And worse it probably can't be dissolved, removed, or altered.

 

[WorldStar]

I don't think anyone is making that argument. Regardless of the system that puts someone like him in power it doesn't change the fact he is insanely unsuitable and potentially dangerous.

it appears that others disagree with you

 

[ItIsOkBro]

There should be a second vote 50 days after the first vote that is essentially "is this what you really want? Y/N" you know, after all the cabinet picks and Russian influences are revealed.

 

[ghst]

I don't give a fuck what the stated rules are. The stated rules are garbage.

Everyone has an idea of what voting means. Everyone understands what democracy means. Everyone understands what "rule of majority" means.

It's incredibly, incredibly counterintuitive that one side can decisively get more votes, millions more votes, and lose. I don't know how anyone accepts this. It's an ancient, outdated, purposeless idea that is only doing great harm and no good whatsoever

If you want to abolish it, there's an argument to be made, but an election under a completely different set of rules would have a completely different result. It's pointless to try and transpose the result under the current circumstances to a completely different one.