Decision 2016

[Dysole]

Originally Posted by Ranior

How many times do you hear or see people in California or Oregon or New York makes statements about how their vote doesn't really matter?

The correct answer is many, many, many, many times. If I had a nickel for how many times I heard fellow Oregonians say this, I'd have a lot of nickels. I mean if the argument is it gives more rural voters a say, then I guess the rural voters of Oregon, California, and Washington don't matter? (Admittedly, here in Oregon there is talk about how the entire eastern part of the state is drowned out by the needs of Portland.) I think it's worth discussing, but there is a lot more land out east. It's just much less densely populated.

~Dysole, dealing with demographics

[dok]

The rural argument, like so many others, is post-hoc and bull****. You know who has the second-most electors per voter? The 100% urban District of Columbia, that's who.

Urban population percentage is negatively correlated with ratio of EVs to population, but not by much. And of course, this ignores that the ratio of EVs to population has almost no correlation to actual voting power. The most powerful voters in 2016 were in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, not Wyoming or D.C. or Vermont.

[vegietarian18]

Voter power and electoral power are two different things. Voter power is lowered if a state has more uniform political views and raised if the outcome is uncertain.

I am in agreement that the swinging of winner-take-all for a state is bad. Eliminating that gets rid of basically every voter power issue while still ensuring equal representation for states

[Ranior]

Can you please explain what solution you would like to see then?

Because you seem to mostly agree with me on the problems so I have a difficult time understanding why you are arriving at some different conclusion as to what the solution is. You seem to be advocating for some hybrid system that perpetuates the problems I am laying out.

[vegietarian18]

I think a push for proportional allocation by state, with current distribution of electoral votes maintained, would be fine. I don't see how that perpetuates the problems. You seem to be a weird spot where you only look at the bad consequences of the electoral college and the positives of a pure popular vote, which I guess is easier given that we only have the electoral college elections as a reference. Anyway, I think where we differ is that I'd rather have the current system than a pure popular vote

[keglo]

I agree with vegi.

I do not want to rely on popular vote, as the President would be chosen by only a few states with the highest populations. States like California. New York, etc. Hell, there wouldn't likely ever be a republican elected again.

I'm not positive that I have a complete handle on the workings of it all but the EC system is supposed to insure that all the states pick our President, not all the people. We are the United States of America after all, not the United People.

[Hahma]

The two America's of 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...rds=AudDevGate

[Hahma]

Not sure why Ivanka is there

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/...eign-dignitary

[Swamper]

The electoral college is very important. I don't want New York, California and Texas picking all our presidents.

[Dad_Scaper]

The concept that each person's vote should count the same is not so strange.

More on fake news: We're being manipulated by a foreign power. Link.

[Crixus33]

Originally Posted by dok

The relative level of concern about the Clinton Foundation over the course of the campaign was really pretty amazing. All people ever really came up with was that the access the donors had to the Clintons "raised concerns", despite no credible evidence of any sort of quid pro quo on any issue. And really, the idea that giving money to a highly rated charity was a means of bribery was always a bit of a stretch.

Meanwhile, Trump has obvious and actual meaningful conflicts of interest. The true extent is hard to know because his financials are more opaque than any president in modern history.

I've been lurking on this thread mostly, but wanted to pipe in with the one story that concerned me (but not enough not to support Hillary) about the Clinton foundation.

There was an episode of last week tonight that brought up a story I had not heard about and I later looked up more stories to support it. If you want to know more I'll edit a link to the episode in (just type in last week tonight raisins and you should get it).

Cliff notes version. Under Secretary of State Hilary Clinton the US sold a Uranium mine to a company in Russia. So what? Apparently her foundation around that time received money from a Russian source that had a vested interest in the deal. (it was a while since I saw it so watch the video for more accuracy)

Concerning? Yes.
Altogether wrong? No.


Again for anyone who wants to know this is what concerned me. Does it prove wrongdoing? No, not enough for me not to support her, but it still is something to look at.
EDIT: Link to show:

YouTube

Hmmm was not expecting to put the video in like that...

[Swamper]

Thoughts on the vote recounts that are being pursued?