Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like you don't understand how the system works or why it works the way it does. If you are not aware of electors then you really don't get how the ELECTORAL college works.
It makes more sense now than ever. That is the basic structure of our government. The 10th amendment even clarifies the power structure.
That is why we have the Electoral College. That way, each state will have a fair vote for president.
Now that is something I can agree with. It puts to much focus on a few states every few years since it is unlikely anyone will visit a solid red/blue state but the popular vote will lead to instability that would cause another civil war.
It would also require a constitutional amendment, which would never pass. Most states would never pass a system that would diminish their power.
It is something the left whines about but that isn't going to change in our lifetime. You would 3/4 the states to agree to change it and that isn't happening anytime soon.
I'm obviously aware of electors. They're selected by what you called a 'popularity contest'.
A 'fair vote for president' is not really what I'd call the electoral college. Why would my vote count for more in Wyoming than Florida? It's not consistent either. Large states still have way more power, so I'm not sure what that's solving.
Okay, glad we can agree on swing states. How could that change under the current system, though? I guess small population states are never going to be as popular for campaigning as places where you can go visit 20x the population in just one city.
The left complains about this system because gives conservatives power disproportionate to their actual numbers, while we are still nominally a democracy. If there was anything like reasonable bipartisan legislative work, it might be better, but things have become so contentious. And yes, I don't expect to see it change because conservative states would have to choose to give up power.
Historically they didn't have to go off the popular vote. It is a check and balance that many states have abandoned.
You are still missing who votes. You seem to think you vote, but it is really the state that votes. That is why your vote in Wyoming counts more.
but it is balanced by the other states. They don't have as much clout as they could.
I don't know that it can be changed in our current system but the swing states change over time. Florida use to be a swing state. Texas will become one in the next ten years or so. Maybe as early as after this election. THey went from a solid red to a light red.
Not really. Since we are state based government, a popular vote would give to much power to blue states vs red states which are the majority of the country.
Uh... no, that's my point. If electors are selected by a popular vote, that's the vote. Very rare for electors to switch candidates.
This states thing is a questionable proxy system. We are sort of, theoretically, a republic of states. Sure. However, it's a flawed system that isn't quite relevant to how the country has developed. It's silly to act like a system invented 250 years ago will always be the best or most effective. The founders of the country didn't expect for the systems to never change. They also didn't expect a party duopoly and hoped to avoid the current situation.
Anyway, it's clearly not purely a 'states vote' situation since it votes are weighed by population. A pure one state, one vote situation would be like that. Texas Republicans recently had a brilliant idea like that where each county would have one vote, which is obviously absurdly anti-democratic - imagine 4 million people in Houston having the same vote as 72 people in some tiny county.
Because 33 states have made laws which I think are unconditional. The electors are a check and balance of the system. The idea is to prevent the wrong type of person being elected.
Not they did did. That’s something very uniquely American that grew and stuck. It’s a shame. More parties would be better.
Our system was designed to be anti-democratic. We were designed to be a republic.
If we were a democracy, being gay would still be a crime. We don’t want that. We have the constitution to help balance things out. People could vote for really bad ideas that destroy the country.
i would love more parties and more choices. If we could get something besides FPTP voting that would be great.
I’m not a democrat. I’m not a racist weirdo. So I’d never fit in.
I’m old school Republican but the party has taken a turn to just be an opposition party rather than actually having ideas.
I fully support abortion publicly which makes me an outlier in the party. I don’t care if anyone is gay or trans which make me an outlier with the religious right. I’m for less spending which makes me an outlier with both parties.
There really isn’t a viable party that economically conservative and socially more liberal. Some people say libertarians but most of them are just anti-tax people and I’m not opposed to taxes. There is a difference in wanting the lowest tax possible and those who oppose all taxes.