Fears of a second Civil War (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

Why is the Electoral College superior to a system where every vote counts equally and the candidate with the most votes wins?

So the population of the US is 332,423,650. The population of the 15 largest metropolitan areas in the US is 108,814,949. So top 15 close to a 3rd of the population. If you include top 30 I'm sure it gets real close to half the population.

We all know how metropolitan areas vote. So 30 cities should determine who the President is ?

You’re assuming all of the people in these metropolitan areas vote the same. They don’t. Also, if it were “one person, one vote” why would you care where those votes are coming from?

Seems I maybe mistaken about the importance of the EC to keep things on an e en playing field.
It seems there has been 19 times that the winner did not receive the major of popular vote per wiki. Article also states there has been 5 times that the winner actually has lost popular vote. That confuses me a little isn't that the same.

Anyway guess I was wrong. I've been wrong once before and that was because I thought I was wrong but I was really right.

Here is the article. Click on list.

List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Does that mean that independents had more in those elections? Ie a majority of the popular vote would be 50.0000001%, so were there years it was something like 49% winner, 48% loser, 3% 3rd party. The other 5 are different b/c it was years were it was 51% winner of popular vote/loser of EC 49% of popular vote/winner of EC.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

 

[supermike80]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

 

[Dickies]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

Yea, this happens a lot with the "I don't want CA and NY to decide elections" crowd.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

POTUS is a national office. A Californian's vote should count as much as that of someone living in Wyoming.

Sorry but logic has no place in this forum.

 

[BladeRunner]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

Yea, this happens a lot with the "I don't want CA and NY to decide elections" crowd.

Also happens a lot with the "I don't want IA and MT to decide elections' crowd too.

 

[rustycolts]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

Yea, this happens a lot with the "I don't want CA and NY to decide elections" crowd.

Also happens a lot with the "I don't want IA and MT to decide elections' crowd too.

I don't know if I was reading that chart right. Or even if I quite understood what I was reading. It may not even be accurate because wiki. However if it is right it may be that I've been wrong in my thinking all these years. If I am reading it right then popular vote more accurate in election selection than EC. Or just as fair?

 

[The Commish]

POTUS is a national office. A Californian's vote should count as much as that of someone living in Wyoming.

Sorry but logic has no place in this forum.

Yeah, Im still trying to figure out how a vote counted in a "popular vote" concept wouldnt count in the EC concept.

Count isnt the right word though. "Be negated" is probably better.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't know if I was reading that chart right. Or even if I quite understood what I was reading. It may not even be accurate because wiki. However if it is right it may be that I've been wrong in my thinking all these years. If I am reading it right then popular vote more accurate in election selection than EC. Or just as fair?

The 5 elections won with less than the majority of the popular vote is correct. Three in the 1800's, then Bush and Trump. I know there were elections decided by other than a vote, like decided by Congress or other circumstances. But I don't think they total up to 19. Not sure what that is. But I agree with the other 5.

 

[BladeRunner]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

Yea, this happens a lot with the "I don't want CA and NY to decide elections" crowd.

Also happens a lot with the "I don't want IA and MT to decide elections' crowd too.

I don't know if I was reading that chart right. Or even if I quite understood what I was reading. It may not even be accurate because wiki. However if it is right it may be that I've been wrong in my thinking all these years. If I am reading it right then popular vote more accurate in election selection than EC. Or just as fair?

Both options have issues. One rewards only the big cities (mostly on the coasts) and the other gives smaller states a voice and a say in the elections. They're not equal, though. The popular vote would give those big cities on the coasts a MASSIVE advantage over the rest of the nation, whereas the EC may give smaller states a voice. There is a difference. The popular vote would effectively ignore the rest of the interior of the US and elections would be decided by the coasts.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

It's also helpful for conversation when every post is like this.

I was just pointing out a possible trend, especially with the dynamics we are talking about in the thread with how the state populations are morphing.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Honestly, what makes me sadder about that chart that rusty linked is that last turnout % column.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

Yea, this happens a lot with the "I don't want CA and NY to decide elections" crowd.

Also happens a lot with the "I don't want IA and MT to decide elections' crowd too.

I don't know if I was reading that chart right. Or even if I quite understood what I was reading. It may not even be accurate because wiki. However if it is right it may be that I've been wrong in my thinking all these years. If I am reading it right then popular vote more accurate in election selection than EC. Or just as fair?

Following up on your question, I looked at other elections after thinking about Ross Perot and his popularity. HERE is a link to the 1992 election. Clinton wins, but got 43% of the popular vote.

 

[Yenrub]

I fear more people getting off the couch to vote over fighting.

Why would you fear more people voting?

Because they would not vote in my best interests.

Not being mean but what side is more likely to vote?

Do you mean which party is likely to vote more? If so, I think I read someplace that lower turn outs are better for Republicans. I think the Democratic Presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 8 elections. Of course I don’t know how all that translates to a ‘civil war”

 

[Rubiobot]

I don't care what system they use but it's crazy to get the most votes and LOSE.

 

[:deadbevo:]

I don't care what system they use but it's crazy to get the most votes and LOSE.

Crazy as in I don't understand our democracy works?

 

[Dickies]

I fear more people getting off the couch to vote over fighting.

Why would you fear more people voting?

Because they would not vote in my best interests.

Not being mean but what side is more likely to vote?

Do you mean which party is likely to vote more? If so, I think I read someplace that lower turn outs are better for Republicans. I think the Democratic Presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 8 elections. Of course I don’t know how all that translates to a ‘civil war”

I also don’t know how it translates to a civil war, but I’m just glad Obama took all of their guns.

 

[BladeRunner]

I don't care what system they use but it's crazy to get the most votes and LOSE.

Crazy as in I don't understand our democracy works?

Amazing they keep denying reality like this

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

 

[FairWarning]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

 

[KarmaPolice]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

1. guns

2 . I thought the other day while reading @ekbeats post about the sides breaking up that I could see war breaking out after trying to amicably split up the country into blue and red and not being able to do that.

 

[KarmaPolice]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

Could you unpack this a little more?

 

[FairWarning]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

1. guns

2 . I thought the other day while reading @ekbeats post about the sides breaking up that I could see war breaking out after trying to amicably split up the country into blue and red and not being able to do that.

Maybe I’ve been too busy lately. I haven’t heard much about the gun debate in the last 3-4 months.

 

[Boston]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

I don't think a Civil War would happen, but the main reason is cultural...as wokeism continues to spread the divide between the two sides becomes bigger and more mean-spirited and unfortunately, I do not see a middle-ground.

 

[Rubiobot]

Trump being indicted would concern me.

 

[roadkill1292]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

If the founders could time travel to today, they would probably be astounded that we're trying to shoehorn their gerry-rigged system designed to entice 13 colonies containing 7 million people into the governance of 50 states and 330 million people.

"Wtf!? We only came up with that plan to get enough colonies to join so the Brits wouldn't come back. You couldn't come up with something better in 250 years? Oy."

 

[BladeRunner]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

If the founders could time travel to today, they would probably be astounded that we're trying to shoehorn their gerry-rigged system designed to entice 13 colonies containing 7 million people into the governance of 50 states and 330 million people.

"Wtf!? We only came up with that plan to get enough colonies to join so the Brits wouldn't come back. You couldn't come up with something better in 250 years? Oy."

That's cool how you think the founders would have YOUR views on things.

 

[BladeRunner]

Trump being indicted would concern me.

We know. Trump ANYTHING always concerns you guys. 24/7. The 10K Trump threads comparing everything to Trump, attributing everything to Trump and every post a TDS rant tells us that.

It's your go-to excuse the cause of every problem in the world.

 

[KarmaPolice]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

1. guns

2 . I thought the other day while reading @ekbeats post about the sides breaking up that I could see war breaking out after trying to amicably split up the country into blue and red and not being able to do that.

Maybe I’ve been too busy lately. I haven’t heard much about the gun debate in the last 3-4 months.

To be clear, I don't see one happening for all the reasons we have been saying, but IF something would start one - I think a gun ban would be at the top of the list.

I don't think people are going to war over pronouns and wokeism.

 

[JIslander]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

I don't think a Civil War would happen, but the main reason is cultural...as wokeism continues to spread the divide between the two sides becomes bigger and more mean-spirited and unfortunately, I do not see a middle-ground.

Yeah, its cultural -- mean spirited, embellished attacks on cultural BS that has barely any influence on anyones lives for the sake of staying in power.

 

[The Commish]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

Some currently unknown conspiracy theory.

 

[BladeRunner]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

I don't think a Civil War would happen, but the main reason is cultural...as wokeism continues to spread the divide between the two sides becomes bigger and more mean-spirited and unfortunately, I do not see a middle-ground.

Yeah, its cultural -- mean spirited, embellished attacks on cultural BS that has barely any influence on anyones lives for the sake of staying in power.

Yeah, it has no influence on anyone's lives.

You serious, Parker?

 

[the moops]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

If the founders could time travel to today, they would probably be astounded that we're trying to shoehorn their gerry-rigged system designed to entice 13 colonies containing 7 million people into the governance of 50 states and 330 million people.

"Wtf!? We only came up with that plan to get enough colonies to join so the Brits wouldn't come back. You couldn't come up with something better in 250 years? Oy."

That's cool how you think the founders would have YOUR views on things.

As opposed to how you think they would side with your views? I mean, we are all guessing here. No need to laugh at someone who disagrees with your take.

The founders got a lot of things right. They also got a lot wrong. Some think the electoral college falls in each of those categories.

 

[the moops]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

Could you unpack this a little more?

In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

"In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time."

www.vox.com

 

[FairWarning]

If a civil war started tomorrow, what is the main reason, other than the two sides can’t get along?

I don't think a Civil War would happen, but the main reason is cultural...as wokeism continues to spread the divide between the two sides becomes bigger and more mean-spirited and unfortunately, I do not see a middle-ground.

Yeah, its cultural -- mean spirited, embellished attacks on cultural BS that has barely any influence on anyones lives for the sake of staying in power.

I know a couple.

 

[FairWarning]

If there is a civil war, everyone must use muskets.

 

[BladeRunner]

For what it’s worth some experts seem to think the primary reason for the existence of the electoral college was to protect slavery (I heard a talk where Yale law professor Akhil Amar made this point). To me it is by far the most compelling argument about its origins.

That doesn’t necessarily mean we should change it (I think we should). But it does call into question the “founders did this because they were geniuses” argument.

If the founders could time travel to today, they would probably be astounded that we're trying to shoehorn their gerry-rigged system designed to entice 13 colonies containing 7 million people into the governance of 50 states and 330 million people.

"Wtf!? We only came up with that plan to get enough colonies to join so the Brits wouldn't come back. You couldn't come up with something better in 250 years? Oy."

That's cool how you think the founders would have YOUR views on things.

As opposed to how you think they would side with your views? I mean, we are all guessing here. No need to laugh at someone who disagrees with your take.

The founders got a lot of things right. They also got a lot wrong. Some think the electoral college falls in each of those categories.

I never stated they would have my views, but I think at the very least their views would be a whole helluva lot more conservative than you think.

But, you're right, the guys who want to solidify that they would never lose another election again (The Democrats) think they got the EC wrong.

 

[The Commish]

If there is a civil war, everyone must use muskets.

Can I use my microwave? I'll be buying a couple cases of and watch those idiots fulfill Darwin's theory in real-time.

 

[Summer Wheat]

I don't care what system they use but it's crazy to get the most votes and LOSE.

The system was set up in the constitution to "win your state" in POTUS elections. Be it by one vote or one million votes. So each state has at least some say. The small states still don`t have much say unless the election is tight. If CA votes Trump then Trump wins, CA votes Biden and Biden wins.

Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Clinton wasted too much time in CA and NY, she should never have spent one minute in CA or NY. Trump never went to CA or NY knowing it was a waste of time and resources.

 

[BladeRunner]

There's nothing Civil about War.

I came up with that myself.

 

[Warblenager]

What stands out is that hadn't happened for 100+ years though, then we get Bush and Trump recently.

It's helpful to narrow stats down until they fit the goal.

Yea, this happens a lot with the "I don't want CA and NY to decide elections" crowd.

Also happens a lot with the "I don't want IA and MT to decide elections' crowd too.

I don't know if I was reading that chart right. Or even if I quite understood what I was reading. It may not even be accurate because wiki. However if it is right it may be that I've been wrong in my thinking all these years. If I am reading it right then popular vote more accurate in election selection than EC. Or just as fair?

Both options have issues. One rewards only the big cities (mostly on the coasts) and the other gives smaller states a voice and a say in the elections. They're not equal, though. The popular vote would give those big cities on the coasts a MASSIVE advantage over the rest of the nation, whereas the EC may give smaller states a voice. There is a difference. The popular vote would effectively ignore the rest of the interior of the US and elections would be decided by the coasts.

I don't understand how anyone could justify not believing in one person=one vote. Unless negating that gives them the advantage. Oh wait...

 

[supermike80]

West Wing did this a lot and usually did it well. Like having to pay attention to a state like Oregon, with their not so many electoral votes, because they might be a factor in the election. Without this kind of thing, the little states would in many cases just get ignored.

 

[the moops]

never stated they would have my views, but I think at the very least their views would be a whole helluva lot more conservative than you think.

But, you're right, the guys who want to solidify that they would never lose another election again (The Democrats) think they got the EC wrong.

They were pretty radical in their day, but yes, compared to today, they are hella conservative.

I actually think the presidential election is pretty OK. I have more of a concern that SD and the like get such a say with 2 senators compared to large states like TX and CA and FL, etc.

 

[BladeRunner]

never stated they would have my views, but I think at the very least their views would be a whole helluva lot more conservative than you think.

But, you're right, the guys who want to solidify that they would never lose another election again (The Democrats) think they got the EC wrong.

They were pretty radical in their day, but yes, compared to today, they are hella conservative.

I actually think the presidential election is pretty OK. I have more of a concern that SD and the like get such a say with 2 senators compared to large states like TX and CA and FL, etc.

IMO, ALL states are, or should, be equal. One state should not get more say than any other. You have to remember, these are separate States. Think of how NATO does it - all the countries in NATO only get one vote. Well, unless you're one of the 5 on the security council but in general, Turkey, England, and all of those other countries that are insanely small in population compared to the US only get one vote - just like the US. In fact, the US has an insanely small population compared to India and China, and we still only get one vote just like them.

Population is irrelevant in NATO, as an example.

 

[KarmaPolice]

POTUS is a national office. A Californian's vote should count as much as that of someone living in Wyoming.

Sorry but logic has no place in this forum.

I read this in a Sensei Kreese voice

 

[Godsbrother]

Trump being indicted would concern me.

Not me. Sure there would be idiots that might try violence but if they are that unhinged they'll probably do so anyway.

If there is enough evidence of Trump breaking the law then he must face the consequences. We cannot let leaders think they are above the law.

 

[The Commish]

West Wing did this a lot and usually did it well. Like having to pay attention to a state like Oregon, with their not so many electoral votes, because they might be a factor in the election. Without this kind of thing, the little states would in many cases just get ignored.

Can you give me a list of "little states" that are consistently fought over today?

 

[The Commish]

I'll also point out that PEOPLE elect the officials, not states. I'm not sure why people are stopping at "state level representation" when it's the PEOPLE that matter most. That said, I'm not against the concept of the EC....I just think every state should be proportional and winner take all goes out the window.

 

[timschochet]

Biden to DeSantis (per DeSantis): we’re with you all the way. All hands on deck.

 

[massraider]

I don't think people are going to war over pronouns and wokeism

No, because the people really angry about wokeism don't have the guts to fight anyone.

What, the battles gonna kick off when some Karens and some busybody senior citizens decide they cannot take it anymore??