Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Parkbandit]

You bet your ass. One person, one vote.

The electoral college and Senate reps were set up during this nation's infancy. Those rules do not apply any more. There are 12 million more registered democrats than republicans in this democracy. The minority party has had the executive even after losing the total popular vote. The minority party, supposedly of less government, has also had both parts of Congress at the same time. If people are afraid of New York and California running things it's because their platform sucks, not because one person, one vote is flawed.

I'm not sure where this fire was during your title fight, but you need to bring this special kind of energy back to this forum.

[Wrathbringer]

You bet your ass. One person, one vote.

The electoral college and Senate reps were set up during this nation's infancy. Those rules do not apply any more. There are 12 million more registered democrats than republicans in this democracy. The minority party has had the executive even after losing the total popular vote. The minority party, supposedly of less government, has also had both parts of Congress at the same time. If people are afraid of New York and California running things it's because their platform sucks, not because one person, one vote is flawed.

Do you just not care that you're wrong or are you just stupid? Honest question.

[Stumplicker]

You bet your ass. One person, one vote.

The electoral college and Senate reps were set up during this nation's infancy. Those rules do not apply any more. There are 12 million more registered democrats than republicans in this democracy. The minority party has had the executive even after losing the total popular vote. The minority party, supposedly of less government, has also had both parts of Congress at the same time. If people are afraid of New York and California running things it's because their platform sucks, not because one person, one vote is flawed.

The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary, but so are physical polling stations, and so is the way we vote. If it's being overhauled, and it may eventually, it needs to happen all at once. If it's safe to trust every person's income and taxes to the internet, it should be safe to securely vote. As safe and probably safer than our current system of "oh the vote is close, look! I found this box of votes for X person in my car's trunk. I just plum forgot to count these.". We also need to federally implement ranked choice voting in order to do away with "wasted" votes.

For example, in the 2016 election, when you consider that 2 million votes went to Jill Stein and 5 million votes went to Gary Johnson, if you take those candidates out of the race, say, going down the list to people's rank 2 choices, 2016's election was basically a dead heat. Stein's votes largely go to Hillary, Johnson's votes largely go to Trump. No ifs ands or buts.

So yeah, get rid of the electoral college. It's unnecessary, but implement ranked choice voting and secure online voting while you're at it. Take potentially corrupt people out of the mix at polling stations, and make getting to the vote more accessible for everyone. Plus, everybody's looking for more ways to keep libraries relevant. One of the big things people do at libraries is access the internet these days. I think something like 20% of the US doesn't have steady internet access. But their local library does.

[Methais]

The electoral college and Senate reps were set up during this nation's infancy. Those rules do not apply any more.

Please elaborate on how the electoral college doesn't apply anymore. Especially since you know, they still apply.

There are 12 million more registered democrats than republicans in this democracy. The minority party has had the executive even after losing the total popular vote. The minority party, supposedly of less government, has also had both parts of Congress at the same time. If people are afraid of New York and California running things it's because their platform sucks, not because one person, one vote is flawed.

Even real retards think you're retarded. The kind of retards that Doyle Hargraves can't eat around.

[Methais]

Before getting elected: “Diversity matters!”

After getting elected:

[Stumplicker]

Please elaborate on how the electoral college doesn't apply anymore. Especially since you know, they still apply.

I don't know what you mean with him by not applying, but I'm gonna use it as a springboard to mention why I dislike the electoral college.

Candidates write off a bunch of states as sure wins or losses, and then focus in on swing states. That morphs the race into this big ball of bullshit where the candidates absolutely must champion causes important to those specific states, not the nation as a whole. If you're courting people, not swing states, you're championing causes important to a wider base. Don't get me wrong, you're still pandering, and that's not going to stop ever, but why is every presidential candidate talking to me specifically about what Florida wants to hear? Shouldn't you be talking about what the greater portion of the nation wants to hear? This lasts all the way through the first election and first term, because hey, you've got to please Florida again in four years. Can't do anything that might upset them, even if it's for the betterment of the nation on the whole. That's half of every presidency, sat fretting over and pandering to a small percentage of swing states.

[Methais]

I don't know what you mean with him by not applying

I'm not sure how it could be more clear, since Back specifically said the electoral college doesn't apply anymore.

The electoral college and Senate reps were set up during this nation's infancy. Those rules do not apply any more.

Candidates write off a bunch of states as sure wins or losses, and then focus in on swing states. That morphs the race into this big ball of bullshit where the candidates absolutely must champion causes important to those specific states, not the nation as a whole. If you're courting people, not swing states, you're championing causes important to a wider base. Don't get me wrong, you're still pandering, and that's not going to stop ever, but why is every presidential candidate talking to me specifically about what Florida wants to hear? Shouldn't you be talking about what the greater portion of the nation wants to hear? This lasts all the way through the first election and first term, because hey, you've got to please Florida again in four years. Can't do anything that might upset them, even if it's for the betterment of the nation on the whole. That's half of every presidency, sat fretting over and pandering to a small percentage of swing states.

As opposed to what, pandering to a handful of big cities instead?

[Back]

The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary, but so are physical polling stations, and so is the way we vote. If it's being overhauled, and it may eventually, it needs to happen all at once. If it's safe to trust every person's income and taxes to the internet, it should be safe to securely vote. As safe and probably safer than our current system of "oh the vote is close, look! I found this box of votes for X person in my car's trunk. I just plum forgot to count these.". We also need to federally implement ranked choice voting in order to do away with "wasted" votes.

For example, in the 2016 election, when you consider that 2 million votes went to Jill Stein and 5 million votes went to Gary Johnson, if you take those candidates out of the race, say, going down the list to people's rank 2 choices, 2016's election was basically a dead heat. Stein's votes largely go to Hillary, Johnson's votes largely go to Trump. No ifs ands or buts.

So yeah, get rid of the electoral college. It's unnecessary, but implement ranked choice voting and secure online voting while you're at it. Take potentially corrupt people out of the mix at polling stations, and make getting to the vote more accessible for everyone. Plus, everybody's looking for more ways to keep libraries relevant. One of the big things people do at libraries is access the internet these days. I think something like 20% of the US doesn't have steady internet access. But their local library does.

I can get on board with almost all of this. Internet voting, reducing corruption in polling places, making voting more accessible, throwing out the electoral college... the vote ranking stuff I'm skeptical. I'd have to see more.

When you think about it the electoral college has screwed us twice now by putting two nitwits in the executive who've royally fucked things up against the will of the people.

[Stumplicker]

I can get on board with almost all of this. Internet voting, reducing corruption in polling places, making voting more accessible, throwing out the electoral college... the vote ranking stuff I'm skeptical. I'd have to see more.

Australia's been using ranked choice voting for 100 years now. I think that's where the idea came from. It works really well. The only opposition to it is party-based. The parties have no incentive to implement a system that would allow independents and small parties into the mix in any meaningful way. If you're not familiar, the way it works is this.

Candidate 1: Hillary Clinton (Tastycrat)
Candidate 2: Donald Trump (Fingerlican)
Candidate 3: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Candidate 4: Jill Stein (Green Party)

You order your candidates in the order you prefer. Here's an example ballot. Note: You don't have to put all the candidates on it. Just the ones you would want.

The vote:

1. Gary Johnson
2. Donald Trump
3. Jill Stein

When the votes are tallied, they take all the Gary Johnson votes, tally them up. If Gary has no chance of winning, all the Gary Johnson voters get bumped down the list to their next choice, so in the above case, your vote goes to Donald Trump. If Donald Trump has no chance of winning, it moves down the list and now you've voted for Jill Stein. If Jill Stein has no chance of winning, you've abstained because you didn't put Hillary on the list.

That way you can safely vote for an independent, a small party, a whatever without thinking your vote will go to waste because if it doesn't pan out, your vote goes to your next choice. My state uses it now as of this last election. I'm hoping more states adopt it and it catches on nationally.

[Taernath]

re: internet voting: It sounds good in theory but we've got people in the highest levels of government that don't follow basic internet security precautions, so it's pretty much dead in the water. If you thought the hyperventilation over voting machines and physical ballots was bad, imagine how 'black box' a completely online voting system would be to the average person.

FPTP/winner-take-all voting is balls, though.