What Did President Trump Do Now?

Anteater · 01-19-2017, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

My point was that she got 62 million votes, so pinning it all on California is a bit absurd given that we don't have that many people nor do we vote 100% blue (this election, only 60% of Cali voters picked Hillary).

And my point is that if you took New York OR California out of the equation (or more specifically, Los Angeles and New York City), she wouldn't have won the popular vote at all. There would be no 3 million lead coming from one population center.

While I agree that the Electoral College system has some issues, I also believe that without a winner take all system you'd have a democracy where your vote doesn't really matter if you don't live in one of the two most concentrated population centers in the country. A straight popular vote as our end-to-end election process would be stupid when you have so many different population segments scattered across this landmass...where political affiliation is, for the most part, set in stone already BASED on geographical region or even the city in which you live.

As it is, at least we have a bit more diversity by doing things geographically, because otherwise even a large state like Texas would be marginalized in every future election just because Dallas or Houston don't have the same level of population density as L.A.

**Frownland** · 01-19-2017, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

And my point is that if you took New York OR California out of the equation, she wouldn't have won the popular vote at all. There would be no 3 million lead.

And if we took out Texas Trump would be in the dumps. Your point?

Quote:

While I agree that the Electoral College system has some issues, I also believe that without a winner take all system you'd have a democracy where your vote doesn't really matter if you don't live in one of the two most concentrated population centers in the country.

A winner take all system makes every minority vote literally pointless. If we did it by district that would make a lot more sense.

Quote:

As it is, at least we have a bit more diversity by doing things geographically, because otherwise even a large state like Texas would be marginalized in every future election just because Dallas or Houston don't have the same level of population density as L.A.

One man, one vote. More people, more votes. It's pretty simple.

Anteater · 01-19-2017, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

One man, one vote. More people, more votes. It's pretty simple.

So are you going to make every person in the country move to L.A. then? Cause if they choose to live anywhere else, their vote will not matter.

Voting by district would make a little more sense though.

**Frownland** · 01-19-2017, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

So are you going to make every person in the country move to L.A. then?

Yes, obviously.

Just curious, what are your thoughts on affirmative action?

Anteater · 01-19-2017, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Yes, obviously.

Just curious, what are your thoughts on affirmative action?

Lol...

Affirmative action is great institutionally. Discrimination, unfortunately, happens regardless of what legislation is in place. It even emerges at companies where you'd think they should know better. The question of how much or how little the government should do will be an ongoing debate 'til the end of time.

CNN Faces Racial Discrimination Class-Action Lawsuit | Variety

**Frownland** · 01-19-2017, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Cause if they choose to live anywhere else, their vote will not matter.

Combatting this victimization of having a less popular opinion by making the votes from LA not matter doesn't solve anything.