Thread: An examination of delegate allocation

Originally Posted by Alundil

Was this what you meant to say? Does Wyoming really have that much sway under the electoral system? Real question as I've not gone digging yet. I think that they only have a few electoral votes.

Wyoming has about 570,000 people and 3 electoral votes. California has 38 million people and has 55 electoral votes. That means in Wyoming, there is 1 electoral vote for every 190,000 people, and in California, there is 1 electoral vote for every 691,000 people. In other words, every person in Wyoming has a 3.6 TIMES as much of a say as a Californian. Same reasoning as why the Senate is undemocratic bullshit, too.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Agreed on this point.


What is your definition of a "safe" state?

California, Texas, New York, all the Deep South, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Illinois, etc. Essentially if you live in those states but support the other side, your vote is meaningless. Even if your guy loses in a swing state, that means your vote is meaningless. This would help to bring out more liberals from conservative states and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Standard voting processes and procedures would be fantastic.

Definitely.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Which voter suppression bills? Clue me in.

The Republican 'voter fraud' fraud | Diane Roberts | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Judge bars voter ID law temporarily - JSOnline
Voter ID bill slated to advance | Sun Journal
Justice Department bars Texas voter ID law - The Washington Post

They use the bullshit guise of "battling widespread voter fraud." There is NO statistically significant voter fraud! None. At all. It's all a ploy to disenfranchise the poor and minorities and to ensure that mostly white, middle-class and above people vote.
Political Animal - The ‘evidence’ bolstering voter-fraud allegations

Originally Posted by Alundil

*I, too, agree that the system as it stands is a joke. Abject and pathetic.

Yep, the Constitution has become an archaic piece of garbage. It's time to rewrite it and give us a real democratic system instead of this pseudodemocratic corporatocracy we have now.

So what is disenfranchising about voter id laws, specifically photo id laws? SCOTUS has already ruled on this to the effect of photo is to vote is not a disenfrachising thing today in this age, nor is it discriminatory. So if SCOTUS has ruled on it, it's pretty much a moot point to argue about now. No?

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Originally Posted by Alundil

So what is disenfranchising about voter id laws, specifically photo id laws? SCOTUS has already ruled on this to the effect of photo is to vote is not a disenfrachising thing today in this age, nor is it discriminatory. So if SCOTUS has ruled on it, it's pretty much a moot point to argue about now. No?

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

No, it's not moot, and I still think it's an important point. Why is it that only Republicans bring up these bills? Why did the DoJ step in and stop the Texas bill? Why did a Wisconsin judge stop the Wisconsin law? Why are Republicans trying to eliminate same-day registration? Maine voters restore Election Day registration - seattlepi.com

It's a direct, coordinated attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters who would likely support Democratic candidates. You think they are doing this on accident or because of some bogus voter fraud nonsense? It is a blatant attempt to suppress the vote and limit turnout because that plays into their advantage. This shit should be criminal.
The GOP War on Voting | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Well if it was proportional (like it should) no vote would really be a waste, no matter how safe. Even if California voted 60% for a democrat, and 35% republican, the Republican would end up with 19 delegates (19.25 if you want to be overly exact) of the 55. Still, though it wasn't its purpose historically, I think the main reason for keeping the EC is because it gives some voice to the minority, be that states with a smaller population, or states which may have different ideals (etc.). Sort of like what the filibuster rule is supposed to be, a way for the minority to still have some say, and share their ideas, but not overrule the majority (which has happened in the EC, be it very rarely, and would be even rarer with proportional imo).

Of course the system is pretty imperfect for that, for one it still gives most of the delegates to states with high population bases, so winning California means way more then winning Wyoming (thus no-one gives a shit what they think). Even proportional wouldn't fix that issue, if you truly want the minority to still have some recognition. Similar to how the filibuster has been basically turned into a complete shit because it lets someone shut down any bill (so long as there isn't 60 senators willing to support the bill). I'm no fan of the EC, but I guess I just feel reforming it would be easier to push through, then scrapping it all together. Off-topic, but the filibuster needs to go back to "giving the minority a voice" without being so overpower that it is a massive crock of shit.

Proportional representation of the electoral college is quite pointless in my opinion. It doesn't have any real benefits and it just a waste of time. If you are going to do that, might as well just get rid of it and let us vote directly for the President. In our 230+ year history, we have never directly voted for the President. So while "reform" might be easier, it is not the right move.

The filibuster is more of a symptom of the real problem. The Senate needs to cease to exist as we know it today. It is an awful and undemocratic institution that is a vestige of our past.

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Not sure I understand your question.

Sorry, I asking if you're trying to select for intelligence or "deservingness," as in, contribution to society.

Originally Posted by Nuckle

It will never happen so it is not relevant.

As we increase the number of citizens that are living off the system and they continue to vote we will see the government assistance programs increase through the election of leaders that promise those things to get those votes. It is a downward spiral that has no end.

If you have gone more than a year without paying into the system or being a part of the device to pay into the system then why should you have say as to how the money is spent. That is really what it all comes down to.

All that said, I do not think anyone that makes less than 30k should have any tax liability but I also disagree with many of the assistance programs that are in place now.

It is pretty simple, I want the people that can work to be working. Where we differ is that I think many that have been on the take for a year or more are lazy and you think they are misfortune.

Drive by a homeless shelter or soup kitchen, does it not seem odd that the place is so fucking dirty and run down? With all those people unemployed you would think they could clean the place up, cut the grass, paint etc. Guess they are all out looking for jobs and too busy.

This seems like the opposite problem that we actually do have. As we allow money to concentrate at the top, the wealthy have more and more to spend on politics, and have more power to decide policy. This results in policies that benefit the rich, concentrating more money at the top, repeat cycle.

The cycle that I'm describing is very real, and we've seen the effects over the last few decades.