We The People: National Popular Vote!

[imported_tajmahal]

The respectful argument happening here between eskimo and Hay is the most important one I have seen here on P and N in ages.

Yeah, they need to take it to the Discussion Club, they're giving us a bad name here at P&N

 

[dyna]

This issue is completely about California. We should all encourage California to be progressive and lead the way and change to a proportional EC.

 

[Brainonska511]

This issue is completely about California. We should all encourage California to be progressive and lead the way and change to a proportional EC.

No state is going to shoot themselves in the foot and unilaterally move to a system that diminishes their own power. Hence the push for the interstate compact or just abolish the EC altogether.

 

[Jhhnn]

The respectful argument happening here between eskimo and Hay is the most important one I have seen here on P and N in ages.

I don't think either one is really framing it in constructive terms. Automation will only increase. The consequence of that is not everybody needs to or even gets to work all the time for a variety of reasons like location, education, talent & whatever. That means we need to discard our Puritan headsets about the moral value of work & ownership or we'll destroy ourselves.

 

[Jaskalas]

The have nots will have less and the haves will have more. Displacing humans and making them valueless is a goal and that's a problem.

If automated production means most the wealth goes to a few... then is not taxation the answer to supplement employment?
Basic income for a nation so technology advanced and wealthy as to not need labor.

*edited for accuracy.

 

[fskimospy]

This issue is completely about California. We should all encourage California to be progressive and lead the way and change to a proportional EC.

They are already helping to lead the way by passing this compact. Happy now?

Also it is most definitely not just about California. It's about states in general that are all but ignored by the electoral college, of which there are quite a few.

 

[agent00f]

I'm turning an economic argument into a real life scenario. Your choice is academic, because power determines what is "best". You don't have to argue for anything, it will happen because you don't have any.

You are also making an economic argument completely void of human concerns. When people are losing high paying jobs for inferior ones with no real hope of regaining them, then you say what? It's all about productivity? You just don't understand that this decrease you face is for the Greater Good. That will sell.

The have nots will have less and the haves will have more. Displacing humans and making them valueless is a goal and that's a problem. If you want to argue that we go sharecropping then so be it, but this is a real problem for real people. Inner cities have had this problem for generations. "Get a job you lazy so and so" but there is no real opportunity and you've put forward a reason why them and everyone else needs to suck it up.

I don't accept that. I may be powerless, but I do not have to agree with the natural consequences of what is being dictated.

The rust belt types losing their jobs with nothing to replace them is only the natural consequences of their own ideology.

Stealing from everyone else to cover their poor life choices doesn't solve the underlying problem.

 

[Moonbeam]

They are already helping to lead the way by passing this compact. Happy now?

Also it is most definitely not just about California. It's about states in general that are all but ignored by the electoral college, of which there are quite a few.

I wish I could hear you and Vic debate this. I believe he is opposed to change and I . of course, have no idea what is best.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think either one is really framing it in constructive terms. Automation will only increase. The consequence of that is not everybody needs to or even gets to work all the time for a variety of reasons like location, education, talent & whatever. That means we need to discard our Puritan headsets about the moral value of work & ownership or we'll destroy ourselves.

I read the debate as follows: Hay is stating that automation is greed driven by a small number who profit excessively at the expense of eliminating jobs from people who can't find sufficient new ones to readjust to some reasonable level of unemployment and eskimo is saying that is true but the outcome can be managed by the policies we create to deal with it. What I hear you saying is that no such reasonable policies can be achieved because of American Puritanical worship of work as a means of positive self identity. I hear three separate and seemingly valid points of view. But Hay doesn't seem to have any confidence that the right kinds of changes can be obtained because of corruption, that eskimo is saying such changes could be done given the proper will, and you are suggesting what the roadblock is. In short, Hay is describing how things are, eskimo how it could be, and you, why it isn't. Personally, I think there are a whole bunch of other reasons why it isn't but yours is part of it.

 

[Double Trouble]

They are already helping to lead the way by passing this compact. Happy now?

Also it is most definitely not just about California. It's about states in general that are all but ignored by the electoral college, of which there are quite a few.

Passing this compact doesn't make the vote in California proportional, it just means they will align their vote with the popular vote winner --- which means exactly nothing because the only states that would ever sign on to that pact are the ones that vote 100% blue each election. In effect, joining this compact just means the it might hurt the democrats at some point, it's a completely pointless compact.

What states are ignored by the electoral college, and how so?

 

[OverVolt]

The rust belt types losing their jobs with nothing to replace them is only the natural consequences of their own ideology.

Stealing from everyone else to cover their poor life choices doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Haha the root issue is that in modern day you have be nimble and mobile because things are changing too quickly. The days of paying off a mortgage working at the same job are SO FAR LONG GONE its not even funny.

But we'll see how much you whine and bitch when the academic, finance or computer markets implode. Computers are really just like Detroit in the 1970s. The number of tech-savvy people who need less IT help and/or out of the box solutions are only increasing as is the automation of alot of IT duties.

Also in terms of software you only need so many platforms, once the frenzy in developing for apple and android slows down the demand for developers will stagnate and affect the whole market. Like how many times are they going make the same software programs on different platforms? There is duplicity in the market You might think you're safe because you have some kind of niche job but wait until how shitty they treat you when they know they can rehire someone else to do your job for $20k less.

The student loan bubble fueling all things academic can't go on forever at this rate either. Thats academic IT, academic building/construction, starbucks, textbooks, et al.

And in terms of finance, things are over financialized and the baby boomers are really the only ones who use excessive amounts of finance products. IE home refinancing, car refinancing, etc. Generally you have to have assets and finance and the following two generations after the boomers have ding dong shit for assets.

 

[Jhhnn]

If automated production means most the wealth goes to a few... then is not taxation the answer to supplement employment?
Basic income for a nation so technology advanced and wealthy as to not need labor.

*edited for accuracy.

That's obviously true. Now sell it to people whose pride & self worth are intimately tied to work & private ownership of production. It would make them just like poor people they've been taught to despise. Just like European soshulism they've also been taught to despise. Not like self sufficient & independent rugged individualists they fancy themselves to be.

 

[buckshot24]

Passing this compact doesn't make the vote in California proportional, it just means they will align their vote with the popular vote winner --- which means exactly nothing because the only states that would ever sign on to that pact are the ones that vote 100% blue each election. In effect, joining this compact just means the it might hurt the democrats at some point, it's a completely pointless compact.

What states are ignored by the electoral college, and how so?

I didn't even notice that these states in already are all solid blue.

 

[Sunburn74]

I didn't even notice that these states in already are all solid blue.

Advisory board is 50/50 Dems and Republicans. Newt Gingrich apparently is on the advisory board.

As to why red states don't sign on beats me. I understand party politics but these small red states aren't doing well. You'd think they want to receive more attention on a national stage in terms of promises from an incoming president. Also in general polls show very strong bipartisan support for a popular vote so there's also the concept of trying to follow the will of the people.

 

[buckshot24]

Advisory board is 50/50 Dems and Republicans. Newt Gingrich apparently is on the advisory board.

As to why red states don't sign on beats me. I understand party politics but these small red states aren't doing well. You'd think they want to receive more attention on a national stage in terms of promises from an incoming president. Also in general polls show very strong bipartisan support for a popular vote so there's also the concept of trying to follow the will of the people.

A popular vote would be the worst thing for them to want to do to get promises from an incoming president.

 

[Sunburn74]

A popular vote would be the worst thing for them to want to do to get promises from an incoming president.

Currently they are getting no promises. No one visits, no one campaigns for their votes by trying to ascertain and fill their needs, and once in office they are an afterthought.

 

[buckshot24]

Currently they are getting no promises. No one visits, no one campaigns for their votes by trying to ascertain and fill their needs, and once in office they are an afterthought.

Ok, but how would a national vote help this in any way?

Under the current system there are constituents in the close states that share the concerns as the ones in places like Wyoming. In a popular vote the wishes of vast swaths of the country would get overwhelmed by single counties in single states. A popular vote scheme would further marginalize them.

 

[agent00f]

Haha the root issue is that in modern day you have be nimble and mobile because things are changing too quickly. The days of paying off a mortgage working at the same job are SO FAR LONG GONE its not even funny.

But we'll see how much you whine and bitch when the academic, finance or computer markets implode. Computers are really just like Detroit in the 1970s. The number of tech-savvy people who need less IT help and/or out of the box solutions are only increasing as is the automation of alot of IT duties.

Also in terms of software you only need so many platforms, once the frenzy in developing for apple and android slows down the demand for developers will stagnate and affect the whole market. Like how many times are they going make the same software programs on different platforms? There is duplicity in the market You might think you're safe because you have some kind of niche job but wait until how shitty they treat you when they know they can rehire someone else to do your job for $20k less.

The student loan bubble fueling all things academic can't go on forever at this rate either. Thats academic IT, academic building/construction, starbucks, textbooks, et al.

And in terms of finance, things are over financialized and the baby boomers are really the only ones who use excessive amounts of finance products. IE home refinancing, car refinancing, etc. Generally you have to have assets and finance and the following two generations after the boomers have ding dong shit for assets.

Smart people aren't smart just because they can figure out computers, or school, or money per se, but rather the faculties which allow them to do so in general. The inland/rural areas have the primitive industries they do only because they were the cheap labor of their day, so trite IT work might be farmed out there sometime if they eventually come to compete with Indians on price.

Instead of investing in the future and making their own smart people/industries through careful planning, like smart economies elsewhere, they maintained a backwards culture which only encouraged a drain of any brains remaining to places which appreciate it. The only reason why they're still ostensibly a first world region is due to the many billions they force out of family too polite to get a separation.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Smart people aren't smart just because they can figure out computers, or school, or money per se, but rather the faculties which allow them to do so in general. The inland/rural areas have the primitive industries they do only because they were the cheap labor of their day, so trite IT work might be farmed out there sometime if they eventually come to compete with Indians on price.

Instead of investing in the future and making their own smart people/industries through careful planning, like smart economies elsewhere, they maintained a backwards culture which only encouraged a drain of any brains remaining to places which appreciate it. The only reason why they're still ostensibly a first world region is due to the many billions they force out of family too polite to get a separation.

The economy is a pyramid. There is only so much room and market for high technology and innovation, and the jobs that fuel them.

The Chinese seem to be doing just fine providing the "primitive industries" of manufacturing things, and that is why unlike America, they now have a thriving, growing and economically resilient middle class.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If automated production means most the wealth goes to a few... then is not taxation the answer to supplement employment?
Basic income for a nation so technology advanced and wealthy as to not need labor.

*edited for accuracy.

The human body is a dynamic complex machine. I dont want to live in the utopia of it being relegated as a ward of the state

 

[agent00f]

The economy is a pyramid. There is only so much room and market for high technology and innovation, and the jobs that fuel them.

The Chinese seem to be doing just fine providing the "primitive industries" of manufacturing things, and that is why unlike America, they now have a thriving, growing and economically resilient middle class.

They build out the primitive industries to step towards the top. The point is to offload the unprofitable layers elsewhere. Just as the cities did with increasingly unprofitable industries to the sticks, who were the chinese of their day before intl shipping and globalization naturally moved those industries elsewhere. The difference is that the chinese are smart enough to keep building their layers on top instead of the american conservative attitude towards education/progress.

 

[piasabird]

The amount of people that voted is really irrelevant. Every state has a set number of delegates and most states vote all their delegates based on that state's populous vote. The votes are counted by state. However, some states are overwhelmingly democratic like Illinois, New York and California. Take California for instance lets say 80% of the people vote Democrat? (I have no clue how it actually worked out).You would have a lot more people voting for Clinton in a large state in which there is one of the largest population counts. However, it doesnt matter how overwhelmingly they vote democratic, because those votes only count in California. It is the same in every state.

 

[Brainonska511]

The amount of people that voted is really irrelevant. Every state has a set number of delegates and most states vote all their delegates based on that state's populous vote. The votes are counted by state. However, some states are overwhelmingly democratic like Illinois, New York and California. Take California for instance lets say 80% of the people vote Democrat? (I have no clue how it actually worked out).You would have a lot more people voting for Clinton in a large state in which there is one of the largest population counts. However, it doesnt matter how overwhelmingly they vote democratic, because those votes only count in California. It is the same in every state.

The popular vote is not legally relevant, but it is relevant to the legitimacy of the election in the eyes of the public.

Delegates are also not evenly distributed amongst the states. Califonia's persons per delegate ratio is one of the highest, whereas a state like Wyoming has one of the lowest (meaning, each vote in Wyoming is effectively worth more). You don't find it problematic that, in theory, ~20% of the population can elect a president over the wishes of the other 80%?

 

[piasabird]

The popular vote is not legally relevant, but it is relevant to the legitimacy of the election in the eyes of the public.

Take a government/civics class. Dont make up information.

 

[soulcougher73]

The popular vote is not legally relevant, but it is relevant to the legitimacy of the election in the eyes of the public.

Delegates are also not evenly distributed amongst the states. Califonia's persons per delegate ratio is one of the highest, whereas a state like Wyoming has one of the lowest (meaning, each vote in Wyoming is effectively worth more). You don't find it problematic that, in theory, ~20% of the population can elect a president over the wishes of the other 80%?

Such a good video