Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

And you know when you don't say that?

When you're a farmer in Nebraska or Kansas or Oklahoma.



NeoGAF's blinders are so infuriating sometimes. You don't even have to agree with me, but no one stops to think that the way that they would like to see the systems of democracy altered in this country is because it aligns just as much with their interests as much as they may find it to be "more fair".

People generally don't "stop to think" anything, that's why it's worth the time to develop actual arguments.

 

[Qazaq]

Because you're just stating it over and over, but have yet to explain why some other system is more representative than counting the votes and declaring the winner based on who got the most votes.

But this is how:

Yes, but some ways to define them are better for our citizens than others.

That sentence could easily come from any GOP Senator, state or federal, that represents rural interests.

Doing this by districts certainly gives rural voices more of a say.

Now, you may think that rural voices just should be drowned out if they are simply outvoted by the urban/suburban interests, but for everyone here acting like this was a no-brainer, this was such a huge concern that it helped result in the entire legislative branch known as the Senate!

 

[Qazaq]

People generally don't "stop to think" anything, that's why it's worth the time to develop actual arguments.

But from my perspective you keep ignoring any evidence that a national popular vote isn't some obvious-as-day fairest way to register peoples' voices when a president is elected?

I keep trying to have that argument, but no one wants to go there.

 

[The Librarian]

#Blinders

Are sunglasses blinders? I guess not.

 

[pigeon]

Now, you may think that rural voices just should be drowned out if they are simply outvoted by the urban/suburban interests, but for everyone here acting like this was a no-brainer, this was such a huge concern that it helped result in the entire legislative branch known as the Senate!

Believe it or not, most of us are familiar with American history.

Why should rural votes carry disproportionate weight? "Because there are fewer of them" is begging the question. What makes that meaningful?

 

[The Librarian]

They make an argument against the city visits without really offering their alternative prediction.

I admit that they could still only campaign in cities, but I was trying to point out that the raw numbers don't bear out any reason to, nor do the voting patters. Why campaign in NYC? LA? Chicago? Philadelphia? Most if not all of the top cities are going to vote Democrat. Under the current system, it'd be easier too to just campaign in the larger cities but they don't.

This seems to be assuming everyone who can vote does (I didn't watch the whole thing but he's citing census numbers). About a third of the US population voted in the last election. Again I'm not arguing against a popular vote, just saying.

It wasn't everyone in the voting-age population because he was using all of the biggest cities' population as a comparison to the US as a whole. You have a point that it's not the voting population, at which point I'd like to see someone do the math and know how cities do with the voting population compared to everything else.

 

[The Technomancer]

Doing this by districts certainly gives rural voices more of a say.

Now, you may think that rural voices just should be drowned out if they are simply outvoted by the urban/suburban interests, but for everyone here acting like this was a no-brainer, this was such a huge concern that it helped result in the entire legislative branch known as the Senate!

And in doing so gives a rural vote intrinsically more weight than an urban vote. Now please explain why this would be a desirable thing. Not just that some people find it desirable, but why you believe it would be a system with merit.

 

[Qazaq]

Those minority of farmers in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma probably would like to revert back to the days when black people like me were disenfranchised. What the fucking fuck does this have to do with anything.

And they still need a voice. That's what democracy is about. As repugnant as those beliefs are, that's the whole point of the first amendment. Allowing those people to say what they want to say, and allowing them to say it through their elected representatives. (That is if only the majority in whatever boundary agrees with it, of course.)

 

[remist]

But this is how:
That sentence could easily come from any GOP Senator, state or federal, that represents rural interests.

Doing this by districts certainly gives rural voices more of a say.

Now, you may think that rural voices just should be drowned out if they are simply outvoted by the urban/suburban interests, but for everyone here acting like this was a no-brainer, this was such a huge concern that it helped result in the entire legislative branch known as the Senate!

Yes, exactly! Then me and the GOPer would have a substantive argument about the merits of each different policy.

Let's have that argument now.

Does a national popular vote not give equal weight to a rural and urban voter? Yes or no?

 

[pigeon]

But from my perspective you keep ignoring any evidence that a national popular vote isn't some obvious-as-day fairest way to register peoples' voices when a president is elected?

I keep trying to have that argument, but no one wants to go there.

What the fuck, man, we keep trying to get YOU to have that argument. YOU HAVE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR AN ARGUMENT TO WORK.

 

[The Technomancer]

And they still need a voice. That's what democracy is about. As repugnant as those beliefs are, that's the whole point of the first amendment. Allowing those people to say what they want to say, and allowing them to say it through their elected representatives. (That is if only the majority in whatever boundary agrees with it, of course.)

You literally just said like five posts up that there may be merit to a system that gives their votes more weight than their urban counterparts. Please lay out a single reason why anyone could argue that that system is more "fair" in determining election results. Because so far what I'm getting is "if less people in the country hold an opinion, their votes should count for more so the race is closer"

 

[User 406]

The idea that the people here want to move to a popular vote format for presidential elections to improve the chances of democrats winning is patently ridiculous. Obama won just 51% of the popular vote in 2012. He won nearly 62% of the electoral votes. If they just wanted democrats to win, they'd want to keep the electoral college as it is, since demographics are already moving steadily towards an even stronger structural advantage for democrats in the EC.

So Qazaq, stop with this "you're only supporting this because it would help democrats" nonsense. The democrats already have a huge EC advantage, and switching to a popular vote system would actually make their chances worse.

 

[The Librarian]

What the fuck, man, we keep trying to get YOU to have that argument. YOU HAVE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR AN ARGUMENT TO WORK.

By this point, Pigeon, I could mistake you two arguing just to argue.

 

[Qazaq]

Now please explain why this would be a desirable thing. Not just that some people find it desirable, but why you believe it would be a system with merit.

Because a significant amount of this country is rural, a significant amount of our country is powered (not literally electrically speaking necessarily) by activity and people that occurs in rural areas.

You're literally asking me what is the point of giving a significant amount of this country a seat at the legislative table.

What the fuck, man, we keep trying to get YOU to have that argument. YOU HAVE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR AN ARGUMENT TO WORK.

I keep doing it and you keep ignoring me. The most obvious example to use in context of the debate is Maine and Nebraska.

Why is what Maine and Nebraska do "less democratic" than what the other states do? You couldn't argue that allowing the intricacies of certain areas of a state to differentiate itself from other areas of a state isn't more democratic? There's a perfectly valid argument to that -- why do you think Maine and Nebraska do it in the first place? Their people feel like the more segments of the population that can differentiate their voices for president over the others, to them, means their voices are being heard.

 

[KingK]

But I mean, don't we discount the idea of the fairness of deciding a president via gerrymandered district because it's unfair to Democrats?

No, we discount the idea because it inaccurately represents voters. If the candidate who has the largest number of supporters in their constituency loses the election, I consider that a flaw in the system in need of correction. I came to this conclusion when I was 12 and didn't even have any kind of political opinions.

Let's say that in some hypothetical democracy called Freedomland there are 15 citizens. Currently, Freedomland has a method of electing a leader where, while usually the winner gets 8+ votes out of the 15, it is possible for a candidate to win with only 7 votes, while their opponent can lose with 8. I, and others, are saying that Freedomland would more accurately represent their voters and be a better democracy if the one who got 8+ votes always won. You are arguing that that wouldn't be fair, because only 7 voters support the other guy so he would have a harder time winning. I'm struggling to find the logic in your reasoning.

You all take for granted that national popular vote INHERENTLY means "best represents the will of the majority of voters", and that is so surface-y and un-thought-out, and the fact is there are a ton of different ways to think about that.

That's why I'm saying that we can narrow down the ways to think about it by comparing it to how it advantages one party or not.

Please, enlighten me on the plethora of methods better at determining the will of the majority.

Do you not believe me that Republicans have won popular votes in the past and may do so again? There was this guy named Reagan who was pretty popular, iirc.

 

[The Technomancer]

Because a significant amount of this country is rural, a significant amount of our country is powered (not literally electrically speaking necessarily) by activity and people that occurs in rural areas.

You're literally asking me what is the point of giving a significant amount of this country a seat at the legislative table.

No, we are asking you why their votes should count more than the votes of their urban counterparts. Why them being outnumbered because more people hold a different opinion is "unfair".

 

[Chichikov]

I read this Asimov story and it didn't sound that bad really.

I remember reading it and thinking "yep, definitely a biologist".

Spoiler

Or biochemist or whatever Asimov was.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

It's a bit funny to talk about this, given that after Obama won NE-2 the Republicans in Nebraska attempted to turn the state back into winner-take-all, but it never went past committee. They tried it before in the 90s, though (vetoed by Ben Nelson).

 

[Qazaq]

Does a national popular vote not give equal weight to a rural and urban voter? Yes or no?

Substitute "rural and urban" with "Utah" and "California".


*I* think the answer is no.


You think the answer is yes.


What I'm asking is: you don't at all see WHY someone could say that the answer is no?

You literally just said like five posts up that there may be merit to a system that gives their votes more weight than their urban counterparts. Please lay out a single reason why anyone could argue that that system is more "fair" in determining election results. Because so far what I'm getting is "if less people in the country hold an opinion, their votes should count for more so the race is closer"

*sigh* That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that Maine and Nebraska can be considered as giving their populations more of an "opinion" because it represents the distinctions within those states than it does in a winner take all system.

To take away the boundaries of the states to register their uniform opinion on who should vote for President, even if you don't AGREE with it, you don't see how many people could see that as their voice being taken away?

 

[Snake]

Because a significant amount of this country is rural, a significant amount of our country is powered (not literally electrically speaking necessarily) by activity and people that occurs in rural areas.

You're literally asking me what is the point of giving a significant amount of this country a seat at the legislative table.

A "significant amount of the country" would comprise a significant amount of the vote, so why wouldn't they get a seat at the legislative table?

 

[Touchdown]

So she probably should face a serious punishment but is going to get away with it?

No, more like she knocked out Congress without them seeing what was coming.

 

[tranciful]

I admit that they could still only campaign in cities, but I was trying to point out that the raw numbers don't bear out any reason to, nor do the voting patters. Why campaign in NYC? LA? Chicago? Philadelphia? Most if not all of the top cities are going to vote Democrat. Under the current system, it'd be easier too to just campaign in the larger cities but they don't.


It wasn't everyone in the voting-age population because he was using all of the biggest cities' population as a comparison to the US as a whole. You have a point that it's not the voting population, at which point I'd like to see someone do the math and know how cities do with the voting population compared to everything else.

Doesn't matter if NYC as a whole goes to dems, GOP could probably still flip a good number of people and/or grab people who wouldn't have otherwise voted. I think Dallas would be a good target for dems.

They currently don't campaign in cities primarily because it's all about battleground states. When they're only visiting a few states, they can see a lot of the towns in those few states instead of just the top cities in the country.

Also, keep in mind the voting demographics would change. More conservatives would vote in ny because their vote would matter, for example. Right now battleground states probably have higher voter turnout, but that would surely shift when battleground states are a thing of the past.

 

[Black Mamba]

Who is arguing for Nebraska voters to have no vote?

Why should an Ohio voter have more value than a voter in California? Can someone explain this?

 

[StopMakingSense]

And then you can go into bad territory of tyranny of the majority -- which, well, being gay, I'm aware of the pratfalls of.

So you are okay with a plan that distinctly targets and decreases the voting power of minorities in Virginia... lol.

 

[The Technomancer]

*sigh* That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that Maine and Nebraska can be considered as giving their populations more of an "opinion" because it represents the distinctions within those states than it does in a winner take all system.

To take away the boundaries of the states to register their uniform opinion on who should vote for President, even if you don't AGREE with it, you don't see how many people could see that as their voice being taken away?

Wait, what? These two statements seem contradictory. In the first you argue that splitting up the votes given represents distinctions in the state more accuratly. But than in the second statement you argue that splitting from the winner take all system can be perceived as reducing the voice of the people.

I feel like you're trying to play devi's advocate without actually defending the DA position, just saying "it exists and you have to respect it, by virtue of its existence"

 

[remist]

Substitute "rural and urban" with "Utah" and "California".


*I* think the answer is no.


You think the answer is yes.


What I'm asking is: you don't at all see WHY someone could say that the answer is no?

Yes, I can see why someone would say the answer is no. Because the popular vote does not give any weight to states. Why should it? It is a vote for the president of our Nation, not a representative of a state.

 

[Qazaq]

No, we are asking you why their votes should count more than the votes of their urban counterparts. Why them being outnumbered because more people hold a different opinion is "unfair".

People keep hurling around the terms "more" and "less".

It has nothing to do with "more and less".

If a person votes, a person votes. It's how that vote is counted, and what it means.

No, we are asking you why their votes should count more than the votes of their urban counterparts. Why them being outnumbered because more people hold a different opinion is "unfair".

Again, it's not about "count more" or "count less".

Making one uniform boundary for determining votes obscures the regional differences between the populations. Or, rather, call the regional differences "states".

You don't see how people in Wyoming wouldn't want their votes to be lopped in with the voters in California?

 

[The Librarian]

Doesn't matter if NYC as a whole goes to dems, GOP could probably still flip a good number of people and/or grab people who wouldn't have otherwise votes. I think Dallas would be a good target for dems.

Also, keep in mind the voting demographics would change. More conservatives would vote in ny because their vote would matter, for example. Right now battleground states probably have higher voter turnout, but that would surely shift when battleground states are a thing of the past.

I'm not at all convinced that a GOP candidate would spend his or her time in NYC just to get a few more conservative votes. Yeah, they'll get votes there no matter what, but those places are so overwhelmingly Democrat I think it'd just be a waste of time.

Also, I don't see the "my vote doesn't matter" sentiment being a huge part of voter disenfranchisement. What drives people away more is the difficulty of the act of voting.

 

[Black Mamba]

I know why Wyoming want its votes separate from California. What I haven't seen is a valid justification for it.

 

[The Technomancer]

Again, it's not about "count more" or "count less".

Making one uniform boundary for determining votes obscures the regional differences between the populations. Or, rather, call the regional differences "states".

You don't see how people in Wyoming wouldn't want their votes to be lopped in with the voters in California?

And how should those regional differences be accounted for? Because what I and basically everyone else think you are arguing for is weighting of the votes in the overall results, because we can't think of another way to modify vote results. So what are you suggesting, if it isn't weighting?

 

[The Librarian]

It's a bit funny to talk about this, given that after Obama won NE-2 the Republicans in Nebraska attempted to turn the state back into winner-take-all, but it never went past committee. They tried it before in the 90s, though (vetoed by Ben Nelson).

Then they went with Plan B and just redistricted Omaha.

 

[SuperBonk]

I would be really interested in hearing arguments for voting systems other than the popular vote. I think the popular vote definitely has its problems but I can't really think of a better alternative.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not at all convinced that a GOP candidate would spend his or her time in NYC just to get a few more conservative votes. Yeah, they'll get votes there no matter what, but those places are so overwhelmingly Democrat I think it'd just be a waste of time.

Also, I don't see the "my vote doesn't matter" sentiment being a huge part of voter disenfranchisement. What drives people away more is the difficulty in the act of voting.

Well in NY for example, the race was close until you counted NYC. The city alone made up just under half of Obama's votes in the state. Discount the city and its much closer (Obama won something like 80% of the vote in NYC). Considering this only a moderate Republican could win in NY as he'd need to eat into those city votes. Switching to a popular vote would probably force both parties left, or in the case of the GOP back to the center. Which frankly isn't a bad thing for them.

 

[s7evn]

So let me get this straight. There is a debate about proportional representation (House) and equal representation (Senate) and its affect on the presidential election. Is it 1787 again?

 

[B-Dubs]

So let me get this straight. There is a debate about proportional representation (House) and equal representation (Senate) and its affect on the presidential election. Is it 1787 again?

I'm on my phone, someone post G-Wash and The Franklin.

 

[Qazaq]

Qazaq, are you just arguing straight-up relativism? Where differences of opinion means that there must be no truth?

I have kept trying to focus the debate on systems that favor one party or another.

Because I wanted to avoid this crap that we're in right now. It's a hole with no end.

You can go on and on and on about what is the fairest way to define democracy is, what "more democratic means". What "fairest" means.

Personally, I think it's really frustrating that no one remotely is willing to cede how removing the distinguishing variations between differences of the country can just as much make people feel like their voices aren't being heard.

This whole thing is only relevant because people refuse to consider that the biggest, most national way of counting votes is not intrinsically the "most fair" way to make peoples' voices heard. It's not, and jesus christ, I don't think it takes that much thought to realize that. Why do we have to go into a debate about the point of having rural interests represented and all that? Really? I don't care. The only point is that people would feel that way!

I UNDERSTAND how the national popular vote thing means a democrat in Wyoming is equal to a democrat in California. But the people of Wyoming aren't going to want their population lumped in with California like that. Why? Because Wyoming wants to have the right to say "even though we are only 500,000 people strong and we only have 3 electoral votes, we don't endorse Barack Obama for president and we have the right to say that through our voting!"

But ultimately, it's a mile-long debate I don't care to have! I have to engage in it because people want to drag it there.

Cyan, I think you're right about what I'm saying, but instead of "no truth", I'm just saying, "we can go down this infinite black hole of what constitutes "fair democracy" OR we can just look at it via which party is systematically helped more.

That's all.

 

[The Technomancer]

So let me get this straight. There is a debate about proportional representation (House) and equal representation (Senate) and its affect on the presidential election. Is it 1787 again?

I don't think anyone is arguing about if states should have proportional representation to their population. The two main debates are if the presidential election should be determined by a system that gives some votes different weights due to districting (the electoral college) and if congressional members should be assigned to districts because, again, districting leads to situations where a party receives, say, 60% of the vote but only has 30% of the House representation for their state.

 

[Magni]

Well there's two things there.


1) We can debate the actual merits of the electoral college. I, personally, don't mind it. It's kind of good in the fact that nobody likes it. It's kind of like how a compromise feels. But it's a system that seems to make the playing field as leveled as possible.


2)



I understand but in terms of maybe the overarching point, it's still basically doing something that changes the system to blatantly favor Democrats.

Changing the system to a nationwide vote-in-the-electoral-college-by-district would systematically favor the Republicans, just as the nationwide popular vote systematically favors the Dems.

Adding to the echo chamber: ...wut? Democracy (currently) favors Democrats, so instead of having the Republicans evolve their positions (as has every single political party in the history of the world at some point), you'd rather we keep our archaic system?

I would be really interested in hearing arguments for voting systems other than the popular vote. I think the popular vote definitely has its problems but I can't really think of a better alternative.

I don't understand it. It's Stockholm Syndrome at this point. How can you not like one person = one vote?

 

[tranciful]

I'm not at all convinced that a GOP candidate would spend his or her time in NYC just to get a few more conservative votes. Yeah, they'll get votes there no matter what, but those places are so overwhelmingly Democrat I think it'd just be a waste of time.

Also, I don't see the "my vote doesn't matter" sentiment being a huge part of voter disenfranchisement. What drives people away more is the difficulty in the act of voting.

You can't extrapolate existing voter demographics. I'm in Texas and the "my vote doesn't matter" thing is HUGE. Texas also has super low voter turnout and I'd bet money that there's a nation-wide correlation between voter turnout and how much of a swing state they're in.

I think you'd see states become more moderate under a popular vote system -- I think the current system promotes the extreme min/maxing you see in campaigns. It's easy for ny and Cali to stay blue when the presidential race ignores them, but look at local offices and you'll see more variety. Even here in Texas, we have some blue mayors.

 

[The Technomancer]

This whole thing is only relevant because people refuse to consider that the biggest, most national way of counting votes is the "most fair" way to make peoples' voices heard. It's not, and jesus christ, I don't think it takes that much thought to realize that. Why do we have to go into a debate about the point of having rural interests represented and all that? Really? I don't care. The only point is that people would feel that way!

I UNDERSTAND how the national popular vote thing means a democrat in Wyoming is equal to a democrat in California. But the people of Wyoming aren't going to want their population lumped in with California like that. Why? Because Wyoming wants to have the right to say "even though we are only 500,000 people strong and we only have 3 electoral votes, we don't endorse Barack Obama for president and we have the right to say that through our voting!"

In a direct vote they will be represented. Specifically they will be represented in proportion to their size. If you (or anyone) are arguing that their representation in the election should not be proportional to their size than you are arguing that some votes are weighted more than others

 

[Qazaq]

Personally, regardless of the merits of the national popular vote itself, I think the Republican needs to moderate ANYWAY. I mean that's clearly evident by this Republican scheme and *one* of the reasons it's so fucking awful: that the party would rather alter the systems of democracy than moderate in accordance with the times and population.

 

[cashman]

As somebody from Texas I would be more inclined to vote if the election was decided by a popular vote rather, and I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives in California who feel the same way.

 

[The Technomancer]

You can't extrapolate existing voter demographics. I'm in Texas and the "my vote doesn't matter" thing is HUGE. Texas also has super low voter turnout and I'd bet money that there's a nation-wide correlation between voter turnout and how much of a swing state they're in.

I dunno, Minnesota is one of the most consistently blue states for the last 50 years, and the Twin Cities area specifically has the highest voter turnout in the country year after year for several decades now (and the state as a whole ranks near the very top). But Minnesota also has some of the highest education rates in the country. I don't know how things would look if you controlled for that.

 

[tranciful]

Wish people would ignore Qazaq

 

[Magni]

Farmers who are afraid the presidential candidates will ignore them? They're already being ignored right now, unless they're farmers in Ohio or Florida.

Besides, you have the House and Senate to be represented, the Presidential Elections are the only elections where EVERYONE votes and therefore, everyone should be equally represented.

How would you like it if we had state electoral colleges to ensure that gubernatorial candidates not spend their time in NYC or LA/SF or Seattle?

 

[Qazaq]

In a direct vote they will be represented. Specifically they will be represented in proportion to their size. If you (or anyone) are arguing that their representation in the election should not be proportional to their size than you are arguing that some votes are weighted more than others

I literally have no idea what you're saying, except some vague notion that giving states electoral votes by their population isn't...already...a way of deciding things proportional to size.

 

[KingK]

People keep hurling around the terms "more" and "less".

It has nothing to do with "more and less".

If a person votes, a person votes. It's how that vote is counted, and what it means.




Again, it's not about "count more" or "count less".

Making one uniform boundary for determining votes obscures the regional differences between the populations. Or, rather, call the regional differences "states".

You don't see how people in Wyoming wouldn't want their votes to be lopped in with the voters in California?

Now you are at least arguing something.

So your position is that rural voters should have systematic protections against getting outvoted by urban votes (please correct me if I'm wrong). This necessarily means that urban voters are under-represented. You haven't yet shown a reason why this should be the case.

Essentially, we're all arguing that a popular vote is ideal because it would be:
1 US citizen = 1 vote

You are arguing that:
1 Urban citizen = x votes
1 Rural citizen = 1.5x votes

 

[The Technomancer]

I literally have no idea what you're saying, except some vague notion that giving states electoral votes by their population isn't...already...a way of deciding things proportional to size.

I'm saying that if the president is decided by a direct comparison of popular vote numbers than the rural interests have a voice directly proportional to their population. You're saying that they'd be under-represented, but I'm saying that in a direct vote, by definition, they are not under or over represented. They have a voice exactly proportional to their fraction of the country's population. You can argue that they should be overrepresented for some reason.

 

[SuperBonk]

I don't understand it. It's Stockholm Syndrome at this point. How can you not like one person = one vote?

I would say the only thing against it is the tyranny of the majority, which is not really a problem if the executive position is "checked and balanced" sufficiently.

 

[Qazaq]

Wish people would ignore Qazaq

*eyeroll* Neogaf's favorite rebuke. "Ignore the troll!"

So your position is that rural voters should have systematic protections against getting outvoted by urban votes (please correct me if I'm wrong). This necessarily means that urban voters are under-represented. You haven't yet shown a reason why this should be the case.

Essentially, we're all arguing that a popular vote is ideal because it would be:
1 US citizen = 1 vote

You are arguing that:
1 Urban citizen = x votes
1 Rural citizen = 1.5x votes

Grrr. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT! I don't care about arguing that! I don't *CARE* whether one thinks the popular vote is ideal.

I care about making my goddamn original point: That changing the system to one that does the national popular vote is a move that systematically favors the Democrats.