• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Whom will/would you vote for?

  • Laurence Kotlikoff (Independent)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tom Hoefling (America's Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    659
Status
Not open for further replies.

SVNate9

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
52
Trophies
0
XP
79
Country
The oceans levels have risen 3 feet from liberal's tears alone in the last two days.
We expect america to sink in a month.

Rip.

The global climate change deniers that exist in droves within the Republican Party will no doubt play their part too.
 

Xiphiidae

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
2,107
Trophies
1
XP
1,684
Country
Australia
1. An electoral system which can allow someone who does not have at least the popular vote to 'win' is flawed particularly in a presidential. Presidential elections are usually hard to fuck up. You usually get this issue in pariliamentary systems which uses majoritarian systems.
2. Don;t mean shit. A bad electoral system is a bad electoral systems regardless of political affiliation. Though it is understandable to for Dems to feel that way as the Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election since 92 apart from Bush's reelection.
3. All votes would become equal in importance. If you live in a deep red/blue state and vote the other way, than your votes really counts for shit.
I like how any system you personally disagree with is automatically 'bad' or 'flawed'. It's almost like you have no idea of the point of non-proportional voting systems in the first place.

In Australia, each of our states has an equal number of Senators, which are elected proportionally on a per-state basis (as opposed to proportionally on a national level), so that if the more populous states like Victoria or NSW vote a certain way, their interests won't overrule those who live in WA, Tasmania or Queensland just because there are fewer people in those states.

It sounds like you want a system that allows 51% of the population to rule over the other 49% on every issue, as opposed to different interests and ways of life (which often have a geographical basis) being respected and defended. I don't want farmers and our agricultural sector to be screwed over just because there are more people in Melbourne and Sydney, and those people happen to have no idea how farmers live. Just because farmers are fewer in number than urbanites doesn't mean they should be denied their voice.

This applies to the US Presidential Election as well: US States are culturally, historically and politically distinct, far more so than Australian states, and the states with smaller populations shouldn't be denied their voice either.

I agree that the Electoral College isn't a perfect system (though Electoral College votes are somewhat normalised by population anyway), and I believe that we should cut out the 'middle men' that are the Electors themselves, but the notion of having a system based on voters by state rather than a nationally proportional one is a good thing, in my view.

So to all those people whining about "muh popular vote", remember that Shillary won the popular vote to Obama in the 2008 primary but got fewer delegates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    BigOnYa @ BigOnYa: https://kotaku.com/nintendo-switch-yuzu-emulator-github-piracy-zelda-1851452740