Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:6/17/2013
Content Ranking:#3622
Comment Ranking:#6422
Highest Content Rank:#1859
Highest Comment Rank:#1032
Content Thumbs: 2239 total,  2575 ,  336
Comment Thumbs: 10292 total,  11169 ,  877
Content Level Progress: 72% (72/100)
Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 278 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 279 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Content Views:139139
Times Content Favorited:150 times
Total Comments Made:1981
FJ Points:8861
Favorite Tags: i (3) | a (2) | hearthstone (2) | in (2) | of (2) | the (2) | Undertale (2) | zombies (2)

latest user's comments

#145 - More people does not equal a greater representation of the Uni…  [+] (19 replies) 11/14/2016 on Jontron +6
#160 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
So you're saying that in order to win the popular vote, all the candidate would have to do is focus on and win 100% of the 100+ most populpus counties representing around 34 states (pic blurry AF so I approximated)?

As opposed to the ultra state-representative electoral college system, which has candidates fighting over, at absolute max, about 18 swing states, and makes tens of millions of Americans' votes worth jack shit.
User avatar
#166 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
#174 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
Not sure what about that video makes any case that the electoral college is more representative of the states than a popular vote, in fact it highlighted That you can win an election while only winning 11 states. Winning these states, by the way, could be done by winning 22% of the popular vote.

I agree that voting MATTERS. If you plan on being represented by politicians, you need to show them that your demographics show up to the polls, but that has nothing to do with the system being an electoral college or a popular vote.
There's no actual benefit to the electoral college that wouldn't also exist in a popular vote.
User avatar
#176 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
A popular vote would mean that smaller states with far less population would have almost no sway what so ever in politics. The population of California alone is larger then the populations N.Carolina, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho combined. This would make it so when it comes to the elections California would have more sway over it then almost any other state. I see you railing on the states that give more electors but let me give you a counter. If we were to go by popular vote that would mean some of the most densly populated cities such as New york are all that matters because most of the Us population live in large cities. That would mean in order for someone to win they would only need to win the support of these few densely populated cities. Not the whole state just that city where the population lives.
#182 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
Also, the electoral college doesn't fix your California problem.
Under the electoral college California already has more sway than any other state with 55 votes.
California has 55 votes, compared to the state's you listed which add up to 21 combined... so how the hell does the electoral college address this problem, all it does is give Cali more voting power than any other state and giving 100% of its voting power to the party that at least 50% of its population. Everything you cited in that comment is markedly WORSE under the electoral college
User avatar
#184 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
The Popular Vote vs the Electoral College There are many arguments to be made both ways, I just see popular voting being a disaster.
#186 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
I've never heard an argument for the electoral college that didn't completely crumble under even minor scrutiny or isn't just flat out false.
User avatar
#187 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
In the same light can you cite me reasons a popular vote system would work better?
#191 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
Voter Turnout:
More people would vote. You and I seem to agree that everyone who can, should vote. But its hard to convince a republican in California that their vote matters, when presidentially it doesn't count for shit.

Nightmare Scenarios:
I believe a system is only as good as the worst thing that could happen under that system. The electoral college can be won by winning 50% + 1 vote of 11 states, which happens to come to 22% of the popular vote. 78% of voting Americans representing 39 states and D.C. would be completely beaten out in the beloved "Give more power to the states" electoral system.
Whats the nightmare scenario for popular vote? The Cities argument you laid out, visualized by the "50% map" commented above. A candidate ignores everything but hundreds and hundreds of cities in 100+ counties representing around 34 states and steals the election without appealing to a single farmer.
If I'm weighing the two in my head, I'm gonna say popular vote is less nightmarish at its worst.

The Only of its Kind:
Senate races, House races, Gubernatorial races etc. etc. (EVERY) race besides president is run by popular vote as far as I'm aware, and the country isn't falling apart at the state level and people aren't begging their state officials to turn to an electoral system to "represent their counties more," probably because it wouldn't.
User avatar
#207 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
What would happen in the case of sjws vs none in this case, to put my arguement bluntly: if group A were to make up 50.01% of the us population vs Group B comprising the rest (and for arguments sake lets say everyone votes) wouldnt this this make group A always the winner by popular vote?
#210 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
Yes, keep in mind that, as I've pointed out before this voter block must, at an absolute nightmare scenario minimum, consist of 100+ of counties representing 34 states. If that block comprised of 50% plus 1 vote of the entire countries voting population continues to prefer a candidate/party, that candidate/party would win the elections.
As opposed to the current system where candidates fight over an absolute maximum of 18 swing states and ignore every other state entirely, either because they are in the bag or unimportant electorally.
This scenario also assumes that public opinion doesn't change in the 4 years between every election and between the new candidates each party has to put up every 4-8 years.
User avatar
#219 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
What I put forward is that if 51% percent are of mind set A and 49% are of mindset B then mindset A is the ruling mindset and B is suppressed no matter what. So mindset B would stop voting because they cannot win against A and lose hope for any change
User avatar
#231 - Lawicki (11/15/2016) [-]
If that were true, then democrats and republicans would get roughly the same percentage of votes in every election but that's not what happens. You know why?

Because people vote on the issues that are near to their heart, and don't always tie themselves to their mindset of choice, that's the point of democracy. And the electoral college is an affront to democracy in that it reinforces a corrupt two party system where neither party works in the interests of the nation as a whole.

The electoral college also makes one vote in one state with a tiny population worth the same as hundreds or thousands of votes from another state with a much larger population.

I am against the electoral college regardless of who won the election. I'd bet if Trump won the popular vote and Hillary won because of the electoral college you'd be pretty pissed and you might even call it "rigged."
User avatar
#246 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
I dont think I would be to mad about it because I know how the college works. Also I was just assigning percentages for the argument I know nothing is ever a 50/50 split. So what makes you against the college?
#221 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
How is that fixed in the electoral system, where 22% can win any given election?
User avatar
#224 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
It is not Im just interested to see if you can think of a resolution of sorts
#236 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
The checks and balances already in place, each state will still elect all its representatives who can counter the executive branch through many many ways our founding fathers intended.
Electing president isn't an and all be all to how our country is governed so making it a fair democratic process doesnt make our government a pure democracy led by an angry majority
User avatar
#249 - vulfex (11/15/2016) [-]
I suppose that is true but as time goes on the angry populace has to elect their senate and reps and such, given enough time the majority could overtake it all. Anyways interesting discussion.
#181 - jwalton (11/15/2016) [-]
That argument is just simply false.
The top 100 cities in the US do not make up even 20% of the country's population. And by the time you reach city #101 in population you are adding under 200,000 people every time.

Under the electoral college system however you would be correct. In order to win the voting power of EVERYONE in the state of New York, a candidate only has to appeal to New York City.
#6 - That's the hardest I've laughed all month. Thank you  [+] (1 reply) 11/08/2016 on Case Porgev Eneman Idoutug +10
User avatar
#7 - echsa (11/08/2016) [-]
my pleasure