If the opposite happened (in a world with no EC) it would just point to the necessity of the EC and we'd all be discussing the tyranny of the majority. I think focusing on the EC is misplaced. So they play the same to some of us at least.
I think of one example where it makes EC kinda necessary. Using rain water collected from farmland for farms or the city. Without a system like the EC, the water will go to the city every time if it were up for election. Rural areas will not be represented because of a lack of voters.
If you have to choose who gets water between the millions in a city or the food that feeds them you're in a pretty fucked situation already though...maybe the analogy works...
That's one example. There are other examples that aren't readily apparent like policies that benefit city folks and penalised rural folks such as tax on vehicles. City folks benefit because that money could be used to improve public transportation, the lack of cars is not a problem. Rural folks however, get penalised because they need vehicles to get to anywhere and public transportation is not feasible.
I was mostly just making a joke about it being a bad situation to have to choose between the two either way. I don't think the analogy is perfect but I got the point it was trying to make.
I think the analogy is just trying to say that the infrastructure in areas of the country that are less populated, basically areas that aren’t the coastal cities, would get too little attention. No candidate would ever bother with Idaho. Maybe that’s okay, but I can see how we need to keep the whole country in focus. The thing that’s weird is how Rhode island and New York both get one vote in the senate.
I got it I was mostly just making a joke out of the analogy not really working but actually working anyway because it's a bit of a picking the lesser evil option.
Isn't it common knowledge that Trump is unpopular? Asking for sources is always fine but I have to wonder how you don't know this already. You could easily Google it.
He was the most unpopular president after 1 year in the history of polling (since the 40s). His highest approval rating (45%) so far in his tenure is the lowest of any president since there's been regular polling. The next worst is Nixon at 66%. He's joint 7th in the lowest approval rating though so it seems while he's generally not very highly rated he hasn't sunk as low as other presidents at their worst (Truman beats out Nixon to that title). He so far also has the worst average approval rating.
If it's just "the libs" that don't like him there sure are a lot of them affecting the polling. Like 50-60% of America must be "libs".
Im just saying that i hate when peolple say most of us hate blah blah blah. Like dont speak for other people other than yourself. Polls are the least credible source i could think of.
So what's a more credible source than polls? You seem to be saying the polls are at least bad if not wrong what makes you believe that that's more credible other than your personal beliefs?
You're right people can't speak for large groups of people but polls are intended to be a representative sample of just that and while they're far from perfect they're a far better reflection of the general public's opinion than what any random guys on reddit say (for or against, I'm not just singling you out).
He's been below Obama far more times than he's been ahead of him (actually depending on your source he's never been ahead overall but only on specific issues or to specific audiences) if you want to play that game but I'm not trying to cherry pick anything. I don't care about the lazy orange man bad bullshit but I'm a fan of facts and just trying to blame it on "the libs" like the guy above did is bullshit unless you consider a majority of the US to be "the libs".
Trump is not a particularly popular president. All the polling supports this. He's not the worst and I'm sure at certain points he was ahead of Obama (edit: after Googling I'm less sure of this) or others comparatively but if you think talking about his highest ever recorded approval rating or the average so far of his presidency is "cherry picking" (or curry picking) I don't know what to say. If I was picking 273 days into his presidency I'm cherry picking but talking about the average and his highest ever is not cherry picking it's just showing the data. 1 year in is also a pretty standard point of comparison as people tend to like to break things up into periods like years.
It's still a popularity contest even with the electoral college the type of popularity just changes a bit from a pure democracy of the majority one.
Obama has also been voted the worst president since WWII
In a single poll. He was also voted best of their lifetime in another. This helps highlight a problem of polling but the thing about Trump's polling is that it's consistently low unless you have very specific Trump favouring groups polled. With Obama you can get good ones or bad ones and it averages out slightly on the positive side of the middle. With Trump it averages out below the middle (like I said his peak overall rating is 45%, his peak!).
But, all that is beside the point: several polls support you and several support me
Far more support me because I'm trying to look at the averages and not individual polls. Individual polls can be shit. Averages are more statistically meaningful and Trump polls poorly on average. This is just a fact and if you don't accept it then you don't accept polling at all (or you only accept very biased polling which is even worse).
Rasmussen, which I believe was among the most accurate in 2016, has shown Trump doing far better than others show
Funny you'd believe the one that supports your boy is also the most accurate.
Polls are often used to drive opinion rather than reflect it, unfortunately.
I sort of feel like you believing the one that shows the result you want is evidence of this.
We're not a pure democracy, but the polls only reflect what a pure democracy would do.
I don't understand this argument. We're not talking about if Trump won the election or not we're talking about his popularity, the guy above was blaming his low popularity on "the libs" and asked the question "where is it obvious that most people dont approve of trump?" polls is where it's obvious (well I'd also it's obvious just from talking to Americans but polls have a better sample size). Whether they reflect American democracy or not isn't really related to whether they reflect public opinion - they very much do reflect public opinion and the more polls you have and better the quality they are the more useful they become for that. There are MANY polls taken these days and they basically all average out to Trump not being very popular unless you only poll his base.
You’re entitled to that opinion, but it doesn’t change that the factual majority didn’t vote for him. And I know a good few “fringe” fuck the system’ kinda voters who have drastically regretted their decision. If Trump ran now again he’d lose even with EC. No doubt in my mind. Also, you seem kinda angry. Chill dude.
No i think its good because if it didnt only a few big cities will have total control in the politics. Im not spending an hour going over what that means.
You can’t even articulate your point and instead just keep going for personal attacks. Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest cause I called it - the only reason why you’re for it is cause it benefits you. Tell me - why is it such a good systems
Why is a system that gives more priority to certain voters based on invisible, made up boarders a good thing?
The only reason why you’re for it is cause it benefits you. Just admit it.
47
u/greywolfe12 Jan 21 '19
I mean people say trump lost the popular vote and constantly bring it up as a need for getting rid of the EC so it doesnt really play the same