Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYConservative

the USA should implement a 539th electoral vote.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NYConservative said:

Mainly to avoid ties, like as in this situation: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gkeYA

Better yet, abolish it, or at least make the number of electoral votes awarded proportional to the vote gained in the state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Better yet, abolish it, or at least make the number of electoral votes awarded proportional to the vote gained in the state

I say abolish it completely. It's anachronistic, it's main purposes for it's creation have ceased to be relevant, most of them long ago, and it leads to bad candidates winning and is one of the tools that keeps the Duopoly's firm and almost unchallengeable grip on power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Patine said:

I say abolish it completely. It's anachronistic, it's main purposes for it's creation have ceased to be relevant, most of them long ago, and it leads to bad candidates winning and is one of the tools that keeps the Duopoly's firm and almost unchallengeable grip on power.

Agreed. Although, I do think making it proportional is a step in the right direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYConservative said:

Mainly to avoid ties, like as in this situation: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gkeYA

I'll note https://www.270towin.com/maps/0NRE9 is likely a more realistic tie map, to be honest.

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I say abolish it completely. It's anachronistic, it's main purposes for it's creation have ceased to be relevant, most of them long ago, and it leads to bad candidates winning and is one of the tools that keeps the Duopoly's firm and almost unchallengeable grip on power.

Also agreed, although alternate voting methods likely have more promise for multiparty systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Better yet, abolish it, or at least make the number of electoral votes awarded proportional to the vote gained in the state

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 4:57 PM, Patine said:

I say abolish it completely. It's anachronistic, it's main purposes for it's creation have ceased to be relevant, most of them long ago, and it leads to bad candidates winning and is one of the tools that keeps the Duopoly's firm and almost unchallengeable grip on power.

When you say "bad candidates" winning it makes it seem more like a partisan bias against it rather than a logical one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

When you say "bad candidates" winning it makes it seem more like a partisan bias against it rather than a logical one.

I didn't state any political party, did I. As far as I'm concerned, the EC and the firm grip of the Duopoly with the bottlenecking of their artificial and contrived primaries and the institutional marginalization of anyone else would have meant a bad candidate won by the time the GE rolled around regardless in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. I still consider it an election that robbed and cheated the great majority of American voters, an aberration of the electoral system, and a crime against the American people, regardless of whether Trump or Clinton would have won - the U.S. voters deserved a FAR better choice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Patine said:

I didn't state any political party, did I. As far as I'm concerned, the EC and the firm grip of the Duopoly with the bottlenecking of their artificial and contrived primaries and the institutional marginalization of anyone else would have meant a bad candidate won by the time the GE rolled around regardless in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. I still consider it an election that robbed and cheated the great majority of American voters, an aberration of the electoral system, and a crime against the American people, regardless of whether Trump or Clinton would have won - the U.S. voters deserved a FAR better choice...

That's still a political reason. Just because YOU didn't like Clinton or Trump doesn't mean that they have their genuine supporters, no matter how small that number is. God knows I am not among them but just because you don't like the EC's resulting victor doesn't make it any less or more valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

That's still a political reason. Just because YOU didn't like Clinton or Trump doesn't mean that they have their genuine supporters, no matter how small that number is. God knows I am not among them but just because you don't like the EC's resulting victor doesn't make it any less or more valid.

Re-read your quote here. You said, " doesn't mean that they have their genuine supporters, no matter how small that number is." Why should two unethical, deceitful, corrupt, lying monsters whose actual, GENUINE, support was actually quite small within their own voter base become the only two VIABLE candidates to lead 300 million people and the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world? Don't you think there's a sign of a very broken system right there, which shows that maybe the American aren't the ones making the REAL choice, somewhere along the line, of their own leaders, anymore, but other corrupt and failed processes are blocking the up the system to unworkability and cheating the American people? Don't you think the American voters deserve a BETTER system? Think about this for a minute, and do not answer on rote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Re-read your quote here. You said, " doesn't mean that they have their genuine supporters, no matter how small that number is." Why should two unethical, deceitful, corrupt, lying monsters whose actual, GENUINE, support was actually quite small within their own voter base become the only two VIABLE candidates to lead 300 million people and the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world? Don't you think there's a sign of a very broken system right there, which shows that maybe the American aren't the ones making the REAL choice, somewhere along the line, of their own leaders, anymore, but other corrupt and failed processes are blocking the up the system to unworkability and cheating the American people? Don't you think the American voters deserve a BETTER system? Think about this for a minute, and do not answer on rote.

You can continue to spew talking points but that's not what I'm talking about. This entire comment was off topic. Your personal opinion of the candidates shouldn't matter, if you have reasons for abolition, make them logical, not emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You can continue to spew talking points but that's not what I'm talking about. This entire comment was off topic. Your personal opinion of the candidates shouldn't matter, if you have reasons for abolition, make them logical, not emotional.

I agree with this. Like it or not, Clinton and Trump each got the most votes from their respective parties. That’s how the system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You can continue to spew talking points but that's not what I'm talking about. This entire comment was off topic. Your personal opinion of the candidates shouldn't matter, if you have reasons for abolition, make them logical, not emotional.

To be honest, I just threw out Trump and Clinton being the two only viable candidates in the same election to deflect @ThePotatoWalrus's claims that my objections with the U.S. electoral system were strictly partisan - that is, strictly, anti-Republican. I have believed the U.S. electoral was broken, corrupted, rigged, controlled by plutocratic oligarchs and behinds-the-scenes manipulators and did not truly reflect the will of the American people and that the American voters deserved better since before you and @ThePotatoWalrus were born, back when Hillary Clinton was still First Lady of ARKANSAS and Donald Trump was only very occasionally mentioned in business news surrounding Atlantic City casinos and Commodore Computers. And I've explained, time and again, my reasons for these beliefs, outside just the 2016 election, but in a very broad and general sense, in numerous posts on these forums, in very eloquent and detailed form, in long posts, using a lot of academic examples and theses, most of the "refutes" and 'arguments" I had received to them, including from you (although, admittedly, @Servo75 was probably the worst for them) in the past of these forums, being much more "reactionary," "Founding-Father-know-best-in-all-things," "things are fine as is," "no need for change," "that's how things work in the America," "the United States is a republic not a democracy (by broad definition of the word 'republic,' a non-answer)," "there would be political chaos," etc. (not saying these are all responses you, yourself, have used, just ones I've gotten from refutes on these forum, or paraphrasings thereof), but I haven't heard a LOT (very little, in fact) logical, rational, unemotional, unreactionary defense of the current system, as is, without any change, as being the best system for the United States, or how it's NOT the worst political system and political culture in the First World, next only to Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

I agree with this. Like it or not, Clinton and Trump each got the most votes from their respective parties. That’s how the system works.

You're not making any point here. People would still vote partisan in a direct election too lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

You're not making any point here. People would still vote partisan in a direct election too lmao.

But, with the way the EC works (especially with the outgoing House of Representatives deciding if no absolute majority of EV's is gained), the two-party system is cemented and reinforced by necessity. I'm of the firm belief that, if the two-party system wasn't essential to be able to viably elect a President via the EC's current system, and thus bottle-necked, contrived, indirect, rotating-state-bias primaries were being used to force unsatisfying nominations, but an election system like in France were in place, the Democratic and Republican would lose political cohesion, because they're strongest reason to keep it would not exist, and they'd collapse into their component already visible sharp ideological camps, which would become separate parties, which would, politically speaking, be a more natural and comfortable state for them to be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this two party system was so demonic, why does a demon like Donald Trump have higher approval ratings than Macron, Trudeau, and other prominent leaders in multiparty systems?

 

Seems to me like the multiparty system in the modern era has just led to hell.

 

...maybe just have no parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kingthero said:

If this two party system was so demonic, why does a demon like Donald Trump have higher approval ratings than Macron, Trudeau, and other prominent leaders in multiparty systems?

 

Seems to me like the multiparty system in the modern era has just led to hell.

 

...maybe just have no parties?

Because Donald Trump has built a cult of personality around his form of conduct, his vitriolic attacks on opponents, his emotionally-(not logically or rationally-) driven populist appeal, his empty and vapid catch phrases which people still like chanting, his blaming of whole demographics for the nations problems, which always simplified things for the masses, even if it's highly unrealistic and never leads to a good when a populist does it, his "throwing of legislative bones" to social conservatives even though he is, in no way, shape, or form personally a social conservative, he laws he allows to be passed don't hurt him at all, so they're great vulture like opportunism, and that iconic New York rambling way he talks makes him seem more "approachable" to many, even he's just as much a detached, ivory tower, plutocratic oligarch with no real personal congress in day-to-day life with the "hoipoloi" just as much as people like Soros and the Koch Brothers - and none of this, or the other hoodwinks he's pulled to get that approval rating, are good thinks or signs of a real leaders. A good con artists, showman, and snake oil salesman, yes, but NOT a good leader or a good person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kingthero said:

If this two party system was so demonic, why does a demon like Donald Trump have higher approval ratings than Macron, Trudeau, and other prominent leaders in multiparty systems?

 

Seems to me like the multiparty system in the modern era has just led to hell.

 

...maybe just have no parties?

To be fair, multiparty systems cause the other parties to dislike them - just like here in the US. Say there were two Democrat-like parties and one- Republican. 33% approval right there. That's how I view it, at least. Most parties have a reason to dislike the others, founded or not, and Trump is earning the ire of Democrats, and some Republicans, which is why he has bad ratings for the US. In France, they have many major parties, which is why they have lower approval ratings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Because Donald Trump has built a cult of personality around his form of conduct, his vitriolic attacks on opponents, his emotionally-(not logically or rationally-) driven populist appeal, his empty and vapid catch phrases which people still like chanting, his blaming of whole demographics for the nations problems, which always simplified things for the masses, even if it's highly unrealistic and never leads to a good when a populist does it, his "throwing of legislative bones" to social conservatives even though he is, in no way, shape, or form personally a social conservative, he laws he allows to be passed don't hurt him at all, so they're great vulture like opportunism, and that iconic New York rambling way he talks makes him seem more "approachable" to many, even he's just as much a detached, ivory tower, plutocratic oligarch with no real personal congress in day-to-day life with the "hoipoloi" just as much as people like Soros and the Koch Brothers - and none of this, or the other hoodwinks he's pulled to get that approval rating, are good thinks or signs of a real leaders. A good con artists, showman, and snake oil salesman, yes, but NOT a good leader or a good person.

How rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

To be fair, multiparty systems cause the other parties to dislike them - just like here in the US. Say there were two Democrat-like parties and one- Republican. 33% approval right there. That's how I view it, at least. Most parties have a reason to dislike the others, founded or not, and Trump is earning the ire of Democrats, and some Republicans, which is why he has bad ratings for the US. In France, they have many major parties, which is why they have lower approval ratings. 

I think that just comes to show that there is too much negativity in this world and people just need some good vibes, maannnnnn.

 

*puff of the good grass*

 

abolish parties to dab on the stereotypes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kingthero said:

I think that just comes to show that there is too much negativity in this world and people just need some good vibes, maannnnnn.

 

*puff of the good grass*

 

abolish parties to dab on the stereotypes

Ok I'm 99% sure this guy is Joe Biden irl just creeping on the forums giving us a good taste of his 2020 presidency. 😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:42 AM, Kingthero said:

If this two party system was so demonic, why does a demon like Donald Trump have higher approval ratings than Macron, Trudeau, and other prominent leaders in multiparty systems?

 

Seems to me like the multiparty system in the modern era has just led to hell.

 

...maybe just have no parties?

You have made a lot of references to the underworld there sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×