4 ms·

> doesn’t imbalance vote value like the electoral college does Of course it does - it imbalances them all the way to zero.

chowchowchow 8y ago
I don’t see how this is an insightful comment. You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. Under the electoral college system, 50 voters for candidate A in Wyoming get more influence than 50 voters in California for the same candidate.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. No I haven’t. Let me explain a bit more below. > Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. > for the same candidate. Exactly! It’s a vote for the same presidential candidate regardless of whether you live in California or Ohio. Yet a Republican vote in California is meaningless because California assigns it’s electoral votes as winner takes all based on state level results. If 51% of voters in California vote Democrat then all 55 electoral votes go towards the Democrats. This clearly disenfranchises conservative voters. California has the ability to assign it’s electoral votes proportionally and enfranchise millions of conservative voters. Of course they won’t because it would hurt the Democrats chances of winning unless all the other states followed suit. Yet if it’s a question of right and wrong then shouldn’t California do the right thing and give conservatives a voice regardless?
  - chowchowchow 8y ago
    I’m sorry but I thought the issue we were talking about was whether global winner-take-all, IE most votes cast in the country determines the winner, is disenfranchising compared to our current electoral college system.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > is disenfranchising compared to our current electoral college system. I guess my point is we can enfranchise significantly more people than today without moving away from the electoral college. Yet no state is seriously considering assigning their electoral votes proportionally. I think that shows the people calling for the removal of the electoral college are playing politics and are only interested in it if it helps their side.
      - chowchowchow 8y ago
        To me your point of view reads as superficially civil but deeply cynical underneath. The current system is unfair, and you criticize people who want to fix it because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned with the goal but in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes individually if they think tax rates on the wealthy are too low.
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned Of course - Your collective actions don’t mirror your rhetoric. > in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. Yet I’ve shown you a politically viable way to enfranchise millions more people and you are claiming that enfranchising these people makes the system less fair? > It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes How so?
        chowchowchow 8y ago
        > I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. I don't think I said anything to that effect -- aside from that the current system is unfair -- but you seem to be arguing against a bit of a straw man here already, so I won't stop you from continuing. > How so? How not so? You could easily say (and I imagine you in particular would say): you think taxes should be higher? You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are. Your viewpoint neglects to consider that certain changes must occur uniformly, at a structural level in order to be effective. Under your proposal, if CA adopted it and WY did not, 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California for the same candidate at the federal level. That you think that is more fair makes it difficult for me to believe you're approaching this discussion in good faith. I also sense you're replaying arguments you've had before and aren't looking to change your mind. So we can probably leave it off here.

chowchowchow 8y ago

I don’t see how this is an insightful comment. You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. Under the electoral college system, 50 voters for candidate A in Wyoming get more influence than 50 voters in California for the same candidate.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. No I haven’t. Let me explain a bit more below. > Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. > for the same candidate. Exactly! It’s a vote for the same presidential candidate regardless of whether you live in California or Ohio. Yet a Republican vote in California is meaningless because California assigns it’s electoral votes as winner takes all based on state level results. If 51% of voters in California vote Democrat then all 55 electoral votes go towards the Democrats. This clearly disenfranchises conservative voters. California has the ability to assign it’s electoral votes proportionally and enfranchise millions of conservative voters. Of course they won’t because it would hurt the Democrats chances of winning unless all the other states followed suit. Yet if it’s a question of right and wrong then shouldn’t California do the right thing and give conservatives a voice regardless?
- chowchowchow 8y ago
  I’m sorry but I thought the issue we were talking about was whether global winner-take-all, IE most votes cast in the country determines the winner, is disenfranchising compared to our current electoral college system.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > is disenfranchising compared to our current electoral college system. I guess my point is we can enfranchise significantly more people than today without moving away from the electoral college. Yet no state is seriously considering assigning their electoral votes proportionally. I think that shows the people calling for the removal of the electoral college are playing politics and are only interested in it if it helps their side.
    - chowchowchow 8y ago
      To me your point of view reads as superficially civil but deeply cynical underneath. The current system is unfair, and you criticize people who want to fix it because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned with the goal but in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes individually if they think tax rates on the wealthy are too low.
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        > because they won't take a local action which is nominally aligned Of course - Your collective actions don’t mirror your rhetoric. > in reality will just tilt the unfairness further. I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. Yet I’ve shown you a politically viable way to enfranchise millions more people and you are claiming that enfranchising these people makes the system less fair? > It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes How so?
        chowchowchow 8y ago
        > I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair. I don't think I said anything to that effect -- aside from that the current system is unfair -- but you seem to be arguing against a bit of a straw man here already, so I won't stop you from continuing. > How so? How not so? You could easily say (and I imagine you in particular would say): you think taxes should be higher? You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are. Your viewpoint neglects to consider that certain changes must occur uniformly, at a structural level in order to be effective. Under your proposal, if CA adopted it and WY did not, 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California for the same candidate at the federal level. That you think that is more fair makes it difficult for me to believe you're approaching this discussion in good faith. I also sense you're replaying arguments you've had before and aren't looking to change your mind. So we can probably leave it off here.