Aoc says electoral college racist

[VolStrom]

Is it unreasonable to expect places where more people reside to have more influence on who governs them?

We could have an electoral college and states with higher populations could have a larger voice, but that would be racist.

 

[McDad]

She didn't call it "racist" in the first place.

Semantics aside, if it does indeed create racial inequality, it's because the small population states that are more heterogeneously white are overrepresented in the EC. You get your population + 2, so a big state has less representation per capita than a small state. Wyoming gets one ECV for every 192k people. CA gets one ECV for every 730k people.

So to answer your question, no.

The only growth of government I favor is growth in the number of representatives elected. The congress should be 10 times bigger. We should have 5,000 congressional representatives and also have 5000 electoral college votes. Every congress person would represent the same number of constituents regardless of the size of the state. It would also create better representation of all people

 

[37L1]

We could have an electoral college and states with higher populations could have a larger voice, but that would be racist.

To be fair and following socialist/communist logic, those more populous states should have to give some of their EC votes to the less fortunate, less populous states.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Creating arguments out of thin air again? I don't know what you are talking about with your EC and Voter ID stuff.


Most people don't think Trump is doing very well when it comes to improving race relations and attacking racisim.

How can you call the EC racist. It's like calling a screwdriver racist.

Good grief.

 

[37L1]

The only growth of government I favor is growth in the number of representatives elected. The congress should be 10 times bigger. We should have 5,000 congressional representatives and also have 5000 electoral college votes. Every congress person would represent the same number of constituents regardless of the size of the state. It would also create better representation of all people

And you think it's a flustercuck now?

 

[FLVOL_79]

That logic would dictate that they campaign just as hard in Podunk Wyoming as they do in Cheyenne.

No it doesnt but you believing that is not surprising at all.

 

[FLVOL_79]

How can you call the EC racist. It's like calling a screwdriver racist.

Good grief.

Its like calling a screwdriver a racist bag of wet hammers from mars.

 

[McDad]

And you think it's a flustercuck now?

Elections or Congress?

 

[37L1]

Elections or Congress?

Congress, plus you want to add more idiot do nothings. I know that's your plan.

 

[McDad]

Congress, plus you want to add more idiot do nothings. I know that's your plan.

I want better representation. If the side effect is almost perpetual gridlock, so be it.

 

[VolStrom]

The only growth of government I favor is growth in the number of representatives elected. The congress should be 10 times bigger. We should have 5,000 congressional representatives and also have 5000 electoral college votes. Every congress person would represent the same number of constituents regardless of the size of the state. It would also create better representation of all people

We can't be having that because middle America would destroy the Democrats chances. The 100% Democrat areas would get overwhelmed by the 75% Republican areas.

 

[n_huffhines]

The only growth of government I favor is growth in the number of representatives elected. The congress should be 10 times bigger. We should have 5,000 congressional representatives and also have 5000 electoral college votes. Every congress person would represent the same number of constituents regardless of the size of the state. It would also create better representation of all people

Interesting. I haven't really considered this, but can't immediately think of why it wouldn't work better than our current system or why it needed capping in the first place?

 

[n_huffhines]

I want better representation. If the side effect is almost perpetual gridlock, so be it.

Gridlock is good.

 

[McDad]

We can't be having that because middle America would destroy the Democrats chances. The 100% Democrat areas would get overwhelmed by the 75% Republican areas.

So let it be written. So let it be done.
- McPharoh RamsesDad.

 

[McDad]

Interesting. I haven't really considered this, but can't immediately think of why it wouldn't work better than our current system or why it needed capping in the first place?

Me either.
I 1st heard about this about 5 years ago and I rejected it out of hand initially. The more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Why did the founding fathers choose the number of representatives? Was it because it was a magic number? I don't think so. I think it's because they wanted a certain number of population per people's representative in the government

 

[VolStrom]

Interesting. I haven't really considered this, but can't immediately think of why it wouldn't work better than our current system or why it needed capping in the first place?

1/435 of 1000 is the same percentage as 1/435 of 1,000,000. Math is hard.

 

[McDad]

1/435 of 1000 is the same percentage as 1/435 of 1,000,000. Math is hard.

Are you assuming the representative of the people (as opposed to states or federal) was based on percentage by the FF?

 

[37L1]

I want better representation. If the side effect is almost perpetual gridlock, so be it.

McDad, Party of One.

Here's your Rep.

 

[VolStrom]

Are you assuming the representative of the people (as opposed to states or federal) was based on percentage by the FF?

It doesn't matter what they based it on originally, that's what it is based on today. That is why they have feuds and law suits over how to apportion congressional districts.

 

[McDad]

It doesn't matter what they based it on originally, that's what it is based on today. That is why they have feuds and law suits over how to apportion congressional districts.

It does matter what they based it on, imo. The more we try to improve what the FF ironed out, the worse the results typically are; except for a few notables.

The gerrymandering is another perverse symptom of too few representatives. Increasing Congress 10 fold creates a logistical nightmare for gerrymanders.

 

[Persian Vol]

“"The Electoral College has a racial injustice breakdown," Ocasio-Cortez said. "Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the Electoral College effectively weighs white voters over voters of color, as opposed to a 'one person, one vote' system where all our votes are counted equally.”

I believe she is referring to the fact that the south has the largest regional AA population, but that their votes are essentially meaningless in a national election.

She continues to say...

She later pointed to Republicans who live in blue states and how their votes "count equally" in a popular vote, and said that eliminating the Electoral College would end the "special treatment of some voters over others."

Also addressing the issue of conservatives who live in liberal states like California for example, who’s votes are rendered meaningless.

Under a popular vote system, every individual would be equally accounted for. I have failed to see a logical argument against this other than the fact that your political party is the beneficiary of this current system.

 

[McDad]

I believe she is referring to the fact that the south has the largest regional AA population, but that their votes are essentially meaningless in a national election.

She continues to say...



Also addressing the issue of conservatives who live in liberal states like California for example, who’s votes are rendered meaningless.

Under a popular vote system, every individual would be equally accounted for. I have failed to see a logical argument against this other than the fact that your political party is the beneficiary of this current system.

I made the case earlier in the thread. You've obviously overlooked my brilliance.

 

[Orangeburst]

1/435 of 1000 is the same percentage as 1/435 of 1,000,000. Math is hard.

It is actually 538 electors...includes 100 for Senate representation and 3 electors for Washington DC. Hence the magical 270.

 

[luthervol]

No it doesnt but you believing that is not surprising at all.

Of course it does.

 

[TheDeeble]

Under a popular vote system, every individual would be equally accounted for. I have failed to see a logical argument against this other than the fact that your political party is the beneficiary of this current system.

I'd guess a large section of the US would be ignored during an election. Someone will come up with some algorithm that hits on an ideal dollars/time spent per voter and presidential candidates will just hit high concentration population areas.

Wouldn't surprise me if voter turnout is lower.