Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521933)

We have a default rule that doesn't make sense, and it remains the default rule because inertia is a powerful thing. Obviously, the Electoral College is good for the few swing states and bad for the rest. No need to pretend there's some principle justifying it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521932)

I still call people about stuff. I text re: scheduling meetings, and I'll reply to email if it's something that can be addressed concisely. But on substance, I like to change my mind, or think through a situation as I'm discussing it. Sometimes you call with one idea and realize as a result of the call that another idea is better.

I think some people these days view being called as rude. They're either young and can't hold a useful conversation, or they want to frame the matter at hand as they want it framed.

Fuck you. We'll frame it cooperatively, fairly, and constructively. As polite adults should do.

I do miss the days of working in a larger organization sometimes. Among the amusing moments was walking down to someone's office to reply to a CYA email that framed an issue in a self-serving manner.

"Did you get my email?"

"That's why I'm here. To respond to it in person."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521935)

There's a huge principle justifying it. The country would collapse if we allowed a few states to control everything.

You can't give people the right to vote for what they want because they'll just keep voting for more and more things that benefit them. Exhibit A on this issue is the corporate control of our economy. The rich get whatever they want, everybody else gets scraps. If we gave NY and CA control of the country, we'd see this reversed. Regular people would vote themselves all sorts of benefits.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521932)

I still call people about stuff...

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521938)

Voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have much more of a say than voters in states like California and Texas. That is true regardless of party. Californians and Texans are taken for granted with the Electoral College, because their votes won't matter. So we spend money on ethanol instead of mass transit. With a national popular vote, politicians would be likelier to cater to swing voters everywhere, rather than just the swing voters in swing states.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521936)

It will go away as soon as the GOP decides it's not in their interest anymore. Just don't know when that will be, as at they moment they're the party of empty land and tyranny of the minority.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521940)

But are you aware of any truly pure democracy that's worked?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521941)

Is a tyranny of 60% of the population over the other 40% much better?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521940)

There will always be flaws. But are you aware of any truly pure democracy that's worked?

And I say pure democracy because merely eliminating the electoral college is inadequate to render all voters' power equal. You also have to get rid of the 2 senators per state structure, which confers unfair power to voters in less populated states.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521941)

Is a tyranny of 60% of the population over the other 40% much better?

Somebody's always going to be "tyrannized" in the system.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521943)

Yes. Obviously. Duh.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521943)

Yes. Obviously. Duh.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521961)

A lot of people lost their heads in the French Revolution, but you would have been one of the first.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521962)

You missed me... The point there was nobody is being “tyrannized.” We have a dumb zero-sum contest selection process. And the fed govt may be a bit too involved in micromanaging the states. Maybe we should let those who wish to live in a progressive world do so and allow those who wish to live in a conservative world do so.

Maybe a less united union is needed. Maybe allow for regional autonomies. The coasts and cities are already economically and culturally separating from flyoverland. And Trumpland wants to live in its own world. We should find a way to give these disparate regions and populations the ability to exist without having to take orders from each other.

How? That’s beyond my pay grade.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521965)

More people voted for Trump in California than in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, both Dakotas, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas combined.