This is fucking ridiculous <| sep |> What do you mean ? Also I can ' t seem to find Cole Haan Oxfords that aren ' t the zerogrand ones <| sep |> that ' s what I ' m sayingthe headcutter doesn ' t need 30 bullets to kill the alien <| sep |> Seriously . Let us keep our grand central and penn station secrets . Not sharing the penn station one of you don ' t know . <| sep |> Recuperaste un poquito de mi respeto <| sep |> Blake griffin came back from injury so his stats dropped <| sep |> Address the arguments , not the person . I am NOT arguing that the current system is better or right or good . I am arguing that your proposed solution is just not going to IMPROVE anything . No system is perfect , that ' s a fact which needs to be accepted that I ' d expect no one is going to argue ? In any position with 1 winner and 2 opinions , someone is going to be unhappy . yes ? Stop me here if we disagree . Also any system can be arbitrarily called Bad , but calling something bad doesn ' t mean everything is equally bad . Taking everyone ' s opinions on what to get for lunch . having 8 say McD ' s , and 2 say Burgerking , and then having a coin flip between McD ' s and Burgerking would be less ideal than a vote , yeah ? Neither system makes every person happy , but one is more representative of the will of the people ? Again , I don ' t expect we ' re disagreeing but if so stop me here . So , by this we can feel free to call the alternative bad , but my argument isn ' t that it ' s perfect or going to solve everything . I ' m saying it would be more representative of the people ' s views . I ' m saying all Americans voices should be equal . A better system , not one that makes everyone happy . which is literally impossible . I meant politicians wouldn ' t have to cater to those people . Currently how much of the country needs catered to ? Really think about this . Right now , the states which were at all close were Arizona , Florida , Iowa , Michigan , Nevada , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Ohio , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin . Personally I ' d argue most of those aren ' t actually swing states , but for the sake of making this competitive lets say they all are . Their populations are 6 . 6 million , 19 . 5 million , 3 million , 9 . 9 million , 2 . 8 million , 1 . 3 million , 9 . 8 million , 11 . 5 million , 12 . 7 million , and 5 . 7 million respectively . 82 . 8 million . Of them , Washington Post estimates 5 % are swing voters . cagewp 20151103 t h e a s t o n i s h i n g d e c l i neoftheamericanswingvoter Lets assume they ' re off and it ' s actually twice that just to again pad the numbers in favor so there ' s no arguments here , so 10 %? 8 . 3 million . Of 318 . 9 million . 2 %? That is the population which a candidate caters to . And personally , I doubt it ' s actually half that . But even if we say it is that high , those 8 . 3 million are less than the number of people on the west coast who are republicans and not represented at all . No one caters to the views of a California republican . And that increases polarization . It makes a skewed cartoon of politics . So respectfully , the argument that certain groups won ' t be catered to doesn ' t hold water for me . Currently almost no one is . And I feel that ' s fueling a large portion of the polarization currently . I ' m not saying you claimed the current system is perfect , but I am claiming these are not equal problems . Better is better than bad , perfect is the enemy of good , and so on . Until you can recognize that it actually was in place to address something and start discussing how to design a system that is better than the current one but still addresses that there ' s no helping you . I ' m quite aware of what it was put in place to address , that ' s not relevant to the current topic . It ' s not 1776 , population distribution , societal issues , and communication have changed . We ' re not trying to make deals to get portions of the country to join . You just keep virtue signalling about a perfect democratic version of electing people without providing any evidence it ' d actually be better . Perfect is not the equal to better . I ' d argue there isn ' t a perfect in this case , as two people having differing stances make perfect an impossibility for a single position . I do argue that having that one position represent the majority of Americans is the better option than having a minority make choices for the majority . Unless there is some reason which that minority can be shown to make better choices for the whole of the country and even then it ' s kind of odd , having minority rule isn ' t something which makes a great deal of sense to me . Thus far , the argument of That ' s the way it is is the best I ' ve seen and it ' s an argument I ' m totally happy to end on . I both know why it is the way it is the history around the EC , and why it will not change it benefits one of the polarized political parties . It ' s not changing and this whole topic is academic . You are misrepresenting what I said overall . I am NOT arguing that the current system is better or right or good . I am arguing that your proposed solution is just not going to IMPROVE anything . I ' m saying we shouldn ' t change from BAD to ALSO BAD . That is not the same thing . And I ' m of the opinion that having a national position reflect national population makes sense ? So far as the rest , my above discussion about ' everything is bad ' answers it . There ' s no such thing as perfect , there ' s better . And a system which initializes politicians to care about more than 2 % of the population seems positive . And it seems like it would cause less extreme views . Yes , many people would be at a disadvantage from this . Swing states would lose out on presidential promises and catering . Farm subsidies could be impacted . Many other things as well . But the same argument could be made for any group who had been given disproportionate representation having it taken away . If I personally chose the president one year , and didn ' t the next year , I would lose out as well . that doesn ' t mean it ' s less fair as a whole . See what I mean ? I think that you ' d put a ton of time and effort into changing things to a different kind of broken . And that ' s pointless . Again , perfect vs better . I ' m also in favor of chaining us from a FPTP system to one more representative . No electoral system is perfect , but better is better . Getting us off of FPTP would be a great thing . You keep asking me to prove the current system is good . I don ' t think that . In so far as you ' re defending the current system , yes I am asking you to explain why you ' re defending it . You keep asking me why the minority should be given power over the majority . I don ' t think that either . As a matter of how the system works , regardless of your views on it , it seems that ' s what you ' re defending ? If the popular vote and EC vote results don ' t match , isn ' t that what ' s happening ? And not once have you provided proof or citations that a majority rules representative system would address the real concerns I am bringing up . Having the president have political views which match with the majority isn ' t a magic wand that fixes all issues though . I ' m not sure what you want here , as you ' re asking for proof of something which isn ' t relevant to the topic . By this same reasoning , I ' d ask you to provide proof that having a rural minority make choices over an urban majority is better for most Americans . Realistically , I don ' t see how that could be demonstrated , so it ' s clearly a nonsense request . And this is a key point , which I really wish you ' d have as a takeaway from this These individual areas are represented at the state and local level . I feel the presidency is a single national position which should be represented based on the majority views of all Americans . LA shouldn ' t be making local choices for Hays Kansas . each group has local leaders who handle that . A step up they have state representatives . Another step up they have the legislative branch . Those are the increasingly broad points of representation for an area . The presidency should not be locally based , it should be national based on the whole of the country . Not Hays choosing for LA , not LA choosing for Hays , an even voice for all of them . Simply saying they shouldn ' t have as much say because they have a higher population in my eyes waves away people as irrelevant . Higher population doesn ' t mean they just have some better resource , those are people and there are more of them so it ' s relevant . Though as we ' ve said , with the current system , it ' s not even that . it ' s that 2 % I mentioned above . If your next response is like the last one I ' m just not hitting reply . If you want to discuss this for real and get into the guts of how to design a better system let me know . I agree on the first part , the second part though not really . designing a better system isn ' t really relevant . It won ' t change and can ' t change . To fix this , the constitution needs changed , and the party benefiting from this system would be mad to allow that . Political groups goal isn ' t equal representation , it ' s advancing their own political views . Which makes sense , you don ' t gain and maintain power being friendly . However , a reality of that is nothing on this can change , so this whole topic can be summed up to It ' s the way it is , but people defending the way it is makes my head hurt .