Why aren't they calling him out?

[Athetotheist]

Trump makes myriad ludicrous claims which are demonstrably false. Media pundits self-righteously crow about the falsehood of his statements, but why is that as far as they go?

When he claims that many professors at his old business college praise his economic plan, the media's response should be, "Name them."

When he suggests that English professors call his "Weave" the most brilliant thing they've ever seen, the media's response should be, "Name them."

His supporters are called stupid for accepting his claims without evidence, but if those calling them that would openly challenge him to present evidence when he can't and let his supporters see that he can't, it would be more effective than just stating that his claims are false.

Why aren't those behind the microphone doing so?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #20]

It's not meant to reverse power, just to equalise it.

But it never does. One side always comes out on the short end, and two wrongs don't make a right.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #20]

It's not meant to reverse power, just to equalise it.

But it never does. One side always comes out on the short end, and two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said I don't entirely agree with the electoral college. But things would be measurably worse than they are now if the only states candidates bothered to appeal to were California and New York.

There may be a better way to stop that from happening but I don't see one.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #22]

As I said I don't entirely agree with the electoral college. But things would be measurably worse than they are now if the only states candidates bothered to appeal to were California and New York.

Appealing to seven states instead of two is a big improvement?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #22]

As I said I don't entirely agree with the electoral college. But things would be measurably worse than they are now if the only states candidates bothered to appeal to were California and New York.

Appealing to seven states instead of two is a big improvement?

Well it's some improvement. We should shoot for everyone having a voice.

My position is that why someone doesn't have a voice doesn't matter. If he theoretically has the same voice but candidates have decided to ignore his state and everyone in it, that's the same as someone not having a voice because their vote actually counts for less.

What I lean toward is that we should adjust until candidates feel they have to appeal to everyone. Even if that should happen with a popular vote (if candidates behaved rationally) if it still doesn't happen, we have the same problem.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #24]

What I lean toward is that we should adjust until candidates feel they have to appeal to everyone.

That's what getting rid of the EC would do. Presidential candidates would have to campaign in every state, making every vote matter. From there, it would be up to the candidates to persuade each voter.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #24]

What I lean toward is that we should adjust until candidates feel they have to appeal to everyone.

That's what getting rid of the EC would do. Presidential candidates would have to campaign in every state, making every vote matter. From there, it would be up to the candidates to persuade each voter.

I believe even Trump said this when he won before. When they complained that he didn't win the popular vote, he just replied that if that was the game he would have just shifted his efforts toward California.

California, Texas, Florida, and New York have about DOUBLE the populations of the next highest states. Those are 20+ mil or close (California is almost 40mil) and then it drops sharply and nobody is much above 10mil.

The candidates might realise that by campaigning everywhere, they could pick up enough dregs to swing an election by appealing to red voters in blue states or vice-versa, but they might just hyperfocus on Baltic Avenue like many Monopoly players do, because that is the highest value, and completely ignore the other hotels.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #26]

The candidates might realise that by campaigning everywhere, they could pick up enough dregs to swing an election by appealing to red voters in blue states or vice-versa, but they might just hyperfocus on Baltic Avenue like many Monopoly players do, because that is the highest value, and completely ignore the other hotels.

If every vote carried the same weight, there wouldn't be any "highest value".

[Purple Knight]

If every vote carried the same weight, there wouldn't be any "highest value".

The highest value is the densest area so you get more bang for your campaigning buck. The internet was supposed to fix this but it didn't.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #28]

The highest value is the densest area so you get more bang for your campaigning buck. The internet was supposed to fix this but it didn't.

Even the densest depends on the sparsest. You can't grow much wheat in Manhattan.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #28]

The highest value is the densest area so you get more bang for your campaigning buck. The internet was supposed to fix this but it didn't.

Even the densest depends on the sparsest. You can't grow much wheat in Manhattan.

Exactly! This is exactly what it comes down to. You know like 3% of the people grow all of our food? The other 97% don't like that and will enslave them. Manhattan will vote to tax the farmers more so they can eat for free. And what will the farmers do about it? They have 3% of the votes.

I absolutely would never propose a system where people who produce our basic necessities get more votes, because it would absolutely be misused. But if you could make it honest (you can't, I admit that fully) this would be the exact system we'd need instead of the electoral college to prevent sparse populations from being enslaved to dense ones.