10 ms·

That's just ridiculous. The US president is directly elected by the people, modulo the weirdness of state-level FPTP. Flawed as the electoral college is, there'

That's just ridiculous. The US president is directly elected by the people, modulo the weirdness of state-level FPTP. Flawed as the electoral college is, there's no comparison whatsoever.

saubeidl 1y ago
The electoral college is directly elected, the president is appointed. It is the same level of indirection.
- andrepd 1y ago
  The electoral college is a rubber stamp of the popular vote (per state). The commission is selected by the member-states governments with no electoral input. You cannot be making this argument in good faith...
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    The member-states governments are elected by popular vote, per state, just as electors are. It is the same level of indirection, whichever way you try to reframe it.
    - thyristan 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        It's a big claim to say somebody is spreading lies. I would say it would require at least a bit of evidence.
    - andrepd 1y ago
      There's no way you're seriously making this argument. I don't know what else to say except repeat myself. The US electoral college is an historical artifact that simply rubber stamps the votes of the States. The member states' heads of government make the decision themselves! The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. Jesus christ.
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        > The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. That is... exactly what they are doing?
        andrepd 1y ago
        The electoral college delegates choose the president of their own free will? There is no presidential election? You literally have to be trawling at this point.
        saubeidl 1y ago
        The electoral college is elected. It then chooses the president, who is not elected by the people. The electoral college is not necessarily reflective of the popular vote, as famously demonstrated by the 2016 election. All of this is simple fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The term presidential election is a euphemizing misnomer, more accurately it would be called presidential electoral college election.
        andrepd 1y ago
        If you don't mind me asking, are you autistic? You are conflating the de jure (winning the popular vote wins you the state's electors) with the de facto (the electors are a pro forma/rubber stamp).
        saubeidl 1y ago
        I am not. And they aren't. You are trying to brush over a significant point to avoid admitting my comparison made sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
        andrepd 1y ago
        The comparison does NOT make sense. One is a body pledged, often legally, to vote for the state's winning candidate, with only extremely rare deviations by faithless electors (which never once came even close to putting the popular electoral results in question). The other is a body who is explicitly tasked with making the decision from scratch. Is it possible that you acknowledge that these are not in the slightest the same?

That's just ridiculous. The US president is directly elected by the people, modulo the weirdness of state-level FPTP. Flawed as the electoral college is, there's no comparison whatsoever.

saubeidl 1y ago

The electoral college is directly elected, the president is appointed. It is the same level of indirection.

andrepd 1y ago
The electoral college is a rubber stamp of the popular vote (per state). The commission is selected by the member-states governments with no electoral input. You cannot be making this argument in good faith...
- saubeidl 1y ago
  The member-states governments are elected by popular vote, per state, just as electors are. It is the same level of indirection, whichever way you try to reframe it.
  - thyristan 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      It's a big claim to say somebody is spreading lies. I would say it would require at least a bit of evidence.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    There's no way you're seriously making this argument. I don't know what else to say except repeat myself. The US electoral college is an historical artifact that simply rubber stamps the votes of the States. The member states' heads of government make the decision themselves! The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. Jesus christ.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      > The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. That is... exactly what they are doing?
      - andrepd 1y ago
        The electoral college delegates choose the president of their own free will? There is no presidential election? You literally have to be trawling at this point.
        saubeidl 1y ago
        The electoral college is elected. It then chooses the president, who is not elected by the people. The electoral college is not necessarily reflective of the popular vote, as famously demonstrated by the 2016 election. All of this is simple fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The term presidential election is a euphemizing misnomer, more accurately it would be called presidential electoral college election.
        andrepd 1y ago
        If you don't mind me asking, are you autistic? You are conflating the de jure (winning the popular vote wins you the state's electors) with the de facto (the electors are a pro forma/rubber stamp).
        saubeidl 1y ago
        I am not. And they aren't. You are trying to brush over a significant point to avoid admitting my comparison made sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
        andrepd 1y ago
        The comparison does NOT make sense. One is a body pledged, often legally, to vote for the state's winning candidate, with only extremely rare deviations by faithless electors (which never once came even close to putting the popular electoral results in question). The other is a body who is explicitly tasked with making the decision from scratch. Is it possible that you acknowledge that these are not in the slightest the same?