Russian elections? Putin's been dictato…I mean president for years now. Wym elections?
@The Landshark , there was an election, he elected himself
@The Landshark , no, he's not always the president. Sometimes he decides to be the prime minister.
@TheStarHawk, And don’t forget his short stint as head of the Department of Definitely-Not-The-KGB.
@The Landshark , yeah most recently was Putin vs a cardboard cutout of Putin
@Medal Delivery Boy, 100% approval rating
@Empshok, you have my attention... go on...
Russia: Russia interferes in all of our elections!
North Korea: We have elections but every time 100.1% of the North Korean people elect our god-leader.
Cant we all just agree that voting for the presidency is bullshít?
Voting for your local offices and such usually actually have an effect. But honestly the electoral college basically renders your vote useless in the presidential race. And dont give me "the electoral college just recasts the popular vote of its demographic" because that has not been the case on more than one occasion.
Or am i missing something here?
@Guy Fawkes, you really don't want to be asking those questions around here. Save yourself the biased responses and do your own research, you'll thank yourself later.
@Guy Fawkes, as a massively uninformed Brit, the US electoral system is fvcking madness.
Fvck what the majority of the people voted for, these more important, smaller groups of people voted for the other thing, so we're going with that.
I may well be miles off the mark, but that's the general gist of my understanding
@EndToOutside, the electoral college is supposed to give smaller states a bigger role than just what their population would contribute to the popular vote. Without it you'd have just California, new York, and texas deciding the presidency. That makes as much sense as someone as far from you as Italy deciding who your next queen is, or whatever it is you do there.
It's not a perfect system, but strict majority rule is dumb and leads to things like slavery and oppression of minority groups.
@Steve the cat, forgive my ignorance, but giving smaller states a bigger role would surely mean that each voting individual in those states would then theoretically have more voting power than individuals in larger states?
@Guy Fawkes, the electoral college is supposed to allow the people throughout the country to have a say in the presidency, not the largest or smallest states. Look at any electoral map of recent years and you’ll see around 35 red (Republican) states to around 15 blue (Democrat) states. If 70% or so of the country said one candidate won, we’d all call that candidate an overwhelming victor; however, those races are usually tight by both electoral and popular standards, because heavily concentrated liberal majorities in states like California and New York keep Democrats in the race, due to their electoral votes. On a smaller scale, look at states like Florida in presidential elections, where all but a handful of counties are red and the yet the race is still close. On paper, the electoral college is antiquated, but the federalist nature of American government has kept it as competitive. The real issue in my eyes is that states with ideological majorities discount (cont.)
@Paranoid Sushi, minority ideologies, meaning a Democrat vote in Texas and Republican vote in California are both worthless, which is why instead of abolishing the electoral college, we should abolish the winner-take-all system and have each state award electors via proportion of popular vote won, like Maine and Nebraska do.
@Paranoid Sushi, see that would at least make more sense. And i know why the electoral college is there. Because true democracy tramples the minority groups (i dont mean racial minority). But then doesnt my original statement still stand? Your vote doesnt amount to anything more than a suggestion. (Excluding Maine and Nebraska, i wasnt aware of that and that system sounds rather nice actually)
@ Emco567, oh im well aware of the biases here, and this isnt the first or only place ive asked :) theres people here who i respect and would like some imput from provided that theyre willing.
@Guy Fawkes, honestly I think it depends on the state you live in. I really think all of the issues lie in the winner-take-all system, because individual votes in states like Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania matter quite a bit, but for voters in California, Texas or New York, the majority is so overwhelming that a vote for any candidate is essentially a suggestion. Living in Las Vegas, I’ve seen this first hand, and as an influx of Californians has turned this state from purple to solid blue. I don’t hate Democrats, but it’s upsetting to see the power of your vote dwindle away and for politicians to care about you less.
@EndToOutside, no for sure that is one of the biggest issues in the electoral college. As I was saying with Guy Fawkes, I think implementing a proportional electorate system like in Maine and Nebraska, where states award electors proportionally to the popular vote within that state, would be the best way to make every vote count while also accounting for state differences across the country.
@Guy Fawkes, well, since you asked:
The “2” party system has completely bastardized the electoral college. 2 is in “ “ because they are both in on it together. They keep increasing their power and authority and stripping away rights, increase spending and making ever more bureaucracy layers.
The intent of the electoral college is to protect the smaller states from being trampled by the major metro cities.
Urban and rural are both necessities to our economy and need to have a say in government. If we went to just popular vote, 95% of the country (geographically speaking) would have to abide by what the tiny fraction’s, where the biggest cities are, rules. And NY and LA determining what is best for everyone else in the country is a guaranteed way to start a civil war.
@EndToOutside, it's not as simple as that, but essentially yes. All but a handful of states (referred to as the battleground states) typically pick the same party every time, making the middle of the road type states more important in terms of where to campaign. Candidates will all but ignore states they are sure to win save for a fund raiser here and there. These smaller states ultimately decide the victor.
@Guy Fawkes, the individual states determine the rules regarding how their electors will vote. Some states require the elector to vote the same as the popular vote in their state, others have no rules but tradition expects them to go with the people even if they aren't required by law. As mentioned a few split their votes by localities. Hope this helps.
@Steve the cat, tradition does. But i find it highly suspect that they dont always do so despite that. Im a naturally paranoid person though admittedly.
And all of the fuss around what basically amounts to qn election of the next figurehead
Love this meme format too, 12/10
Tbh Russia doesn’t have elections either. Not ones with more than one candidate running anyway
Is this an old meme i feel like this was popular like 2 years ago and it recently came back to life
Why having a president and not like a very small chamber of about 7 people who are focussing in their department but voting together on changing rules?