Upload
Login or register

iamscifer

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:5/02/2012
Stats
Comment Ranking:#11542
Highest Content Rank:#12682
Highest Comment Rank:#4531
Content Thumbs: 197 total,  248 ,  51
Comment Thumbs: 1942 total,  2418 ,  476
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 19 Content: New Here → Level 20 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 37% (37/100)
Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:8216
Times Content Favorited:6 times
Total Comments Made:2810
FJ Points:2380

  • Views: 8352
    Thumbs Up 248 Thumbs Down 51 Total: +197
    Comments: 9
    Favorites: 6
    Uploaded: 06/02/12
    Title Title

latest user's comments

#42 - well even if the earth is going thru a constant heating/coolin…  [+] (3 replies) 11/13/2016 on Trump On Climate Change 100... +3
User avatar
#388 - disturbedmaster (11/14/2016) [-]
Yes we did speed it up. Which is how the word global warming got coined
User avatar
#389 - iamscifer (11/14/2016) [-]
but it doesnt mean that the climate change wasnt going to happen as it would of just at a much slower rate
#43 - cosmiclich (11/13/2016) [-]
Thanks man
#99 - But the thing is each state is highly different kinda like its…  [+] (1 reply) 11/10/2016 on The Popular Vote! 0
User avatar
#101 - Rothgar (11/11/2016) [-]
Elect someone that keeps states issues in the state, I guess? I'm not really sure what the issue is. California clearly doesn't have enough power to overrule everyone else, or even that many other states. Especially these days where most issues are somewhere around a 50/50 divide nation wide. It sort of seems like you are saying that if we switched to a popular vote or the system I described, California and a few other states would totally crowd out everyone else, but they can't do that because not enough people would agree on it. If they did, it would be a national issue and the kind of thing that the President and the federal government should be dealing with anyway.
#95 - I cant think of a better system myself but to think that your …  [+] (3 replies) 11/10/2016 on The Popular Vote! 0
User avatar
#97 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
Obviously people should all still vote, but it doesn't change the fact that you can get some screwy results like in the 2000 election and then apparently again just now.
I think a better system would be to have each district in the state give it's vote the same way that the full states currently do, and then have the Senate based votes cast based on the popular candidate for the whole state (same as they currently are).
This would give each person close to equal voting power, and it would actually do a lot to counteract gerrymandering and other corrupt bullshit.
User avatar
#99 - iamscifer (11/10/2016) [-]
But the thing is each state is highly different kinda like its own country(shitty example ik but still). So having some state like Cali vs a state like Georgia means Georgia wont even have a say so. America is made up of many many types of people and changes from state to state so something is needed to balance it out in a way that 1 type of people wont have more influence over all others.
User avatar
#101 - Rothgar (11/11/2016) [-]
Elect someone that keeps states issues in the state, I guess? I'm not really sure what the issue is. California clearly doesn't have enough power to overrule everyone else, or even that many other states. Especially these days where most issues are somewhere around a 50/50 divide nation wide. It sort of seems like you are saying that if we switched to a popular vote or the system I described, California and a few other states would totally crowd out everyone else, but they can't do that because not enough people would agree on it. If they did, it would be a national issue and the kind of thing that the President and the federal government should be dealing with anyway.
#90 - Because before when we did popular vote only it was basically …  [+] (5 replies) 11/10/2016 on The Popular Vote! 0
User avatar
#93 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
Okay, that makes sense from a historical point of view, back when the states were more important to the political landscape, but why should we still be using it?
I am not even sure that a pure popular vote would be the way to go, but I certainly don't see why the electoral college is better. It's not like your actual vote wouldn't matter, and in many ways it would matter more! If you voted Trump in California or Clinton in Texas, your vote might as well have not been cast. It did absolutely nothing to influence the result of the election.
At least in a popular vote, your voice doesn't get lost if you have a different opinion than most of the people who happen to live around you. The winner-take-all system seems like it would be more upsetting than the idea that there is a majority of people in the whole country that don't agree with you (as would happen if your candidate lost a popular vote.)
User avatar
#95 - iamscifer (11/10/2016) [-]
I cant think of a better system myself but to think that your vote doesnt even count is a very cancer way of thinking. Thinking like that leads to people to not even vote resulting in a very different election turnout in most states.
User avatar
#97 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
Obviously people should all still vote, but it doesn't change the fact that you can get some screwy results like in the 2000 election and then apparently again just now.
I think a better system would be to have each district in the state give it's vote the same way that the full states currently do, and then have the Senate based votes cast based on the popular candidate for the whole state (same as they currently are).
This would give each person close to equal voting power, and it would actually do a lot to counteract gerrymandering and other corrupt bullshit.
User avatar
#99 - iamscifer (11/10/2016) [-]
But the thing is each state is highly different kinda like its own country(shitty example ik but still). So having some state like Cali vs a state like Georgia means Georgia wont even have a say so. America is made up of many many types of people and changes from state to state so something is needed to balance it out in a way that 1 type of people wont have more influence over all others.
User avatar
#101 - Rothgar (11/11/2016) [-]
Elect someone that keeps states issues in the state, I guess? I'm not really sure what the issue is. California clearly doesn't have enough power to overrule everyone else, or even that many other states. Especially these days where most issues are somewhere around a 50/50 divide nation wide. It sort of seems like you are saying that if we switched to a popular vote or the system I described, California and a few other states would totally crowd out everyone else, but they can't do that because not enough people would agree on it. If they did, it would be a national issue and the kind of thing that the President and the federal government should be dealing with anyway.
#88 - this election map is a good showing why only popular vote wont…  [+] (11 replies) 11/10/2016 on The Popular Vote! 0
User avatar
#89 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
But California has like 20% of the actual, real people...
Seriously, that doesn't make sense to me. The less populous your state, more your individual vote matters. How does that seem like the better way to do things?
#92 - PapaPalpatine (11/10/2016) [-]
A lot of this is that the intent behind the nation was to have states function largely independently from the federal government. Naturally that has changed fo a whole shit ton of reasons, one of which being federal funding for state programs, but all of that is a moot point. What it really comes down to is this: California has most of the people, but also has the most power to make laws and policies concerning those people, while the other states have fewer people, but also can't directly make Californian policy. Part of the president's job is to manage interstate relations and decide things on a national scale.

Last thing I'll say here is just an example. Say the electoral college isnt a thing and california pretty much decides the vote. Also say that california is very concerned with two issues; the drought and fishing regulations. Now california could pass californian laws that don't affect anyone else, but if those two issues are their voting issues, they may support a candidate who would make decisions regarding those issues on a federal level. So that elected president passes two laws, one being a temporary ban on recreation fishing, and another being a water ration. Suddenly, people in Louisiana cant fish in the Mississippi, or take long showers, despite their actions having nothing to do with the problems California cares about.

Tl;Dr States have different concerns, and shouldn't be left out of the process because of low population. High population states should be utilizing state policy to make changes instead of relying on the president to do it for them.
User avatar
#94 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
I don't think your example is very representative. People in any state don't (or at least shouldn't) base their choice for president on things that are local issues to their state. Things that are environmental or geographical, other stuff like that. I don't think that anyone would try to elect a president that is trying to enact nation wide laws for local problems. If that ever has happened, I'd like to see it.
If it's an issue that some people think should be left to the states, and others think should be a federal issue (like gay marrage) then it is resonable for people to base their presidential choice on that. And in that case, a popular vote (or a less winner-take-all system at least) would work just as well at worst, and in my opinion (And many others) it would work better.
#96 - PapaPalpatine (11/10/2016) [-]
Fair enough. Mostly I'm trying to put a little perspective into why it still exists in the modern. Honestly I would argue that state governments lack a lot of the power they should have, an example being Colorado making marijuana legal, but the drug still being federally illegal. I can't point to an immediate example of a recent example of location specific voting, but one factor in the southern states leaving the union was that they almost unilaterally voted against Lincoln and he still won. I suppose a modern paralell would be if the midwest entirely voted against a candidate, while that same candidate still wnet into office. I would imagine that would cause some outrage amongst the people rsponsible for the majority of agricultural production in the country if a candidate that did not represent their interests, and thus their consumer's interests was elected despite their total opposition.

Either way though, I'm just being devil's advocate and trying to provoke thought
User avatar
#98 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
I appreciate that. Good talking to you.
User avatar
#90 - iamscifer (11/10/2016) [-]
Because before when we did popular vote only it was basically saying the smaller states have 0 input into how America was ran. They controlled nothing that was being done and just had to "deal with it". To me that's kinda similar to how UK treated the USA before we was actually the USA. At the time we was basically states to the UK yet wasn't getting any input on how we could live our lives
User avatar
#93 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
Okay, that makes sense from a historical point of view, back when the states were more important to the political landscape, but why should we still be using it?
I am not even sure that a pure popular vote would be the way to go, but I certainly don't see why the electoral college is better. It's not like your actual vote wouldn't matter, and in many ways it would matter more! If you voted Trump in California or Clinton in Texas, your vote might as well have not been cast. It did absolutely nothing to influence the result of the election.
At least in a popular vote, your voice doesn't get lost if you have a different opinion than most of the people who happen to live around you. The winner-take-all system seems like it would be more upsetting than the idea that there is a majority of people in the whole country that don't agree with you (as would happen if your candidate lost a popular vote.)
User avatar
#95 - iamscifer (11/10/2016) [-]
I cant think of a better system myself but to think that your vote doesnt even count is a very cancer way of thinking. Thinking like that leads to people to not even vote resulting in a very different election turnout in most states.
User avatar
#97 - Rothgar (11/10/2016) [-]
Obviously people should all still vote, but it doesn't change the fact that you can get some screwy results like in the 2000 election and then apparently again just now.
I think a better system would be to have each district in the state give it's vote the same way that the full states currently do, and then have the Senate based votes cast based on the popular candidate for the whole state (same as they currently are).
This would give each person close to equal voting power, and it would actually do a lot to counteract gerrymandering and other corrupt bullshit.
User avatar
#99 - iamscifer (11/10/2016) [-]
But the thing is each state is highly different kinda like its own country(shitty example ik but still). So having some state like Cali vs a state like Georgia means Georgia wont even have a say so. America is made up of many many types of people and changes from state to state so something is needed to balance it out in a way that 1 type of people wont have more influence over all others.
User avatar
#101 - Rothgar (11/11/2016) [-]
Elect someone that keeps states issues in the state, I guess? I'm not really sure what the issue is. California clearly doesn't have enough power to overrule everyone else, or even that many other states. Especially these days where most issues are somewhere around a 50/50 divide nation wide. It sort of seems like you are saying that if we switched to a popular vote or the system I described, California and a few other states would totally crowd out everyone else, but they can't do that because not enough people would agree on it. If they did, it would be a national issue and the kind of thing that the President and the federal government should be dealing with anyway.