GOP to vote Friday on McDaniel, Dhillon, Lindell as new RNC chief

[Occupational Hubris]

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not actually an alternative to the electoral college. Ranked choice voting is a system of counting votes based on ranking your choices. You'd still be voting for the electoral college within that ranked choice system, right?

Or am I missing something? 

With that said, I would not be opposed to a ranked choice system as part of your electoral colleges. 

Kill the electoral college and use ranked choice across the board.Popular vote aslo makes sense. People vote, not land. 

[psyche101]

35 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

Ranked choice voting 

I reckon a thread on voting systems might prove interesting.

I've already absolutely horrified PA with the idea of removing people and making qualifications the deciding factor in a leader. Like any job. Voting doesn't work. Too many hard core right wingers to ever get a sensible compromise. And it's a deteriorating system IMHO.

[+Paranoid Android]

30 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

Kill the electoral college and use ranked choice across the board.Popular vote aslo makes sense. People vote, not land. 

Popular vote is a terrible idea, imo. It would unfairly put power into the hands of urban Americans while simultaneously taking it away from rural Americans.

And that's before you even get into the real difficult part - convincing the smaller States to agree to a smaller say in government affairs.

[+Paranoid Android]

38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I've already absolutely horrified PA with the idea of removing people and making qualifications the deciding factor in a leader

It horrifies anyone who believes in freedom! 

38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Voting doesn't work. Too many hard core right wingers to ever get a sensible compromise.

It's called democracy. It sucks that right wingers get a say in government too, if only we could make a system where only left wingers were able to have a say in who runs the country! 

This is sarcasm, by the way. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[Occupational Hubris]

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Popular vote is a terrible idea, imo. It would unfairly put power into the hands of urban Americans while simultaneously taking it away from rural Americans.

 

So you think that less people should have more say? That doesn't make sense and why we have such a divided government.  Land doesn't vote. People vote. People tend to congegrate in cities. 

[psyche101]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

It horrifies anyone who believes in freedom! 

 

Nah, it just horrifies control freaks who think they have done a good job with voting so far. Some people think they are the smartest on earth and should be consulted on everything. Especially things they aren't qualified in. 

Freedom isn't the ability to be swayed by BS promises and the most expensive and influential campaign. Nor is it trying to force one half of a nation to submit to the other half. 

Campaigns also should be capped. Like they used to be. 

If America today isn't proof that voting does not work, nothing would satisfy a person who feels that the world will crumble without their say. 

A qualified position would remove lies, incompetence and corruption. We would never see a Trump or Biden as president, we would never see Scott Morrison bumbling through a term. People who run the world today simply would be exposed at just how inadequate politicians are for such an important job.

You're just closed minded and worried you will lose some power you never really had. 

[psyche101]

27 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It horrifies anyone who believes in freedom! 

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, Occupational Hubris said:

So you think that less people should have more say? That doesn't make sense and why we have such a divided government.  Land doesn't vote. People vote. People tend to congegrate in cities. 

I've shared my reasons for why I don't think the popular vote is a good idea elsewhere on the forum. If someone starts a thread on voting, I might add my thoughts to that. For now I'll leave it be. I would like to say that just because I don't think the popular vote is the best option, it doesn't therefore mean that the electoral college is the only/best alternative. Happy to discuss them if someone starts that thread. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

What would you replace it with? I agree that the electoral college is not a perfect system, but an election based on the direct popular vote across the entire country is even worse than the electoral college, in my opinion. I don't know if another system could be found that would appease all 50 States, but I'm open to it if you find a better solution.

Actually have the count in Federal districts count for forvthe voted instead of winner take all.

[HSlim]

11 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

What would you replace it with? I agree that the electoral college is not a perfect system, but an election based on the direct popular vote across the entire country is even worse than the electoral college, in my opinion. I don't know if another system could be found that would appease all 50 States, but I'm open to it if you find a better solution.

What's wrong with leaving it to the people?  

[Myles]

I'm a fan of the electoral college and I believe it works well.

If you live in a state without very big cities, it helps you be represented and the candidates do not totally ignore you.

[+Paranoid Android]

6 hours ago, HSlim said:

What's wrong with leaving it to the people?  

Population demographics. I've lived in the city (going to school, I went to one of the largest schools in NSW, with 1600 students). I've also spent 5 years living in rural Australia (population less than 6000 in the whole town, covering multiple square km's). People in the bush (as we Aussies would call it) have very different needs to the people in the city. They vote differently for that reason. If voting becomes a vote based purely on the popular vote, it will forever remove the voice of those who live in rural areas. Their needs will constantly and consistently be subservient to the needs of the urban majority. 

Australia deals with this issue with "electorates", and we have had Prime Ministers who haven't won the popular vote. America has dealt with the issue with "the electoral college" to similar effect. The electoral college also factors into the equation the fact that America was once a collection of disparate States, and when the country unified as the USA each State was given a guaranteed say in the running of government. Removing the electoral college will effectively remove the voice of individual States, which would make the treaty (or whatever the legal document that the individual States of the USA signed) null and void, and bye bye USA. 

[Golden Duck]

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Population demographics. I've lived in the city (going to school, I went to one of the largest schools in NSW, with 1600 students). I've also spent 5 years living in rural Australia (population less than 6000 in the whole town, covering multiple square km's). People in the bush (as we Aussies would call it) have very different needs to the people in the city. They vote differently for that reason. If voting becomes a vote based purely on the popular vote, it will forever remove the voice of those who live in rural areas. Their needs will constantly and consistently be subservient to the needs of the urban majority. 

Australia deals with this issue with "electorates", and we have had Prime Ministers who haven't won the popular vote. America has dealt with the issue with "the electoral college" to similar effect. The electoral college also factors into the equation the fact that America was once a collection of disparate States, and when the country unified as the USA each State was given a guaranteed say in the running of government. Removing the electoral college will effectively remove the voice of individual States, which would make the treaty (or whatever the legal document that the individual States of the USA signed) null and void, and bye bye USA. 

Federal Districts are the equivalent of electorates. IIRC, plurality wins all (well most) of the EC votes for that State in something like 48 out the 50 States.

EG, in 2020, Trump "won" seven of the Congressional Districts.  An EC vote split of 48-7 would have seen better representaion for the rural communities.