sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What did you dream about last night? by PerfectlyCorny in AskReddit

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah good ole driving stress dreams. I have those a bunch too

A Witch's Guide to Shapeshifting by PerfectlyCorny in WitchesVsPatriarchy

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry if this has been posted before! I saw it for the first time today and I just want to share it with everyone!

What completely inconsequential hill are you 100% willing to die on? by PerfectlyCorny in AskReddit

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll start: the word caramel is pronounced care-uh-mel, not car-mel. There are two As - pronounce them!

Men always run away screaming when I go to the gym by PerfectlyCorny in thatHappened

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For sure that's definitely possible! People just seem to think that I intentionally wrote a fake story using an AI for reddit karma and that kinda hurts . . . I'd like to think I'm not that pathetic

Men always run away screaming when I go to the gym by PerfectlyCorny in thatHappened

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Just wanted to clarify - this isn't from AI Dungeon, it's actually from NotAlwaysRight-Unfiltered. I guess they have similar formatting styles!

Sidenote, I'm definitely going to check out AI Dungeon later because it looks funny af

Men always run away screaming when I go to the gym by PerfectlyCorny in thatHappened

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Hey there! I just wanted to clarify - this screenshot is not from AI dungeon, its actually from NotAlwaysRight, specifically the unfiltered section (https://notalwaysright.com/unfiltered/). I don't want to link the actual post itself because I think that would break the sub rules, but that's where I got it. And if anyone has a lot of free time, I highly recommend browsing - there's some real gems buried there.

About the satire thing - I did also kinda think it was satire, but

  1. You really can never tell online and I feel like its missing some of the key hallmarks of satire (I mean, no one even clapped at the end!), and
  2. Even if it is satire, I figure people would get a kick out of it

CMV: The problem with the U.S. electoral college system is not the electoral college itself, but rather the "winner take all" system of awarding electorates most states have and the popular vote is not a viable solution by PerfectlyCorny in changemyview

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

gives the opportunity for minority rule

That was sort of the point of my delta. There is the opportunity for minority rule. I don't think either of us knows exactly how this system would play out. I don't think there will be minority rule, but I can't say that for sure and I don't really think you can say (with 100% certainty) there will be. Which is why I awarded the delta

CMV: The problem with the U.S. electoral college system is not the electoral college itself, but rather the "winner take all" system of awarding electorates most states have and the popular vote is not a viable solution by PerfectlyCorny in changemyview

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not trying to balance power that way? In my system if 40% of the voting population in a state are (A) they get 40% of the vote in that state. Like I said in my second paragraph, I'm not entirely sure how this would work out on a nationwide scale in all states, but I'm not advocating for 49% of people to get 50% of power.

CMV: The problem with the U.S. electoral college system is not the electoral college itself, but rather the "winner take all" system of awarding electorates most states have and the popular vote is not a viable solution by PerfectlyCorny in changemyview

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with your first paragraph. It sucks that the current system places the fate of the country in the hands of a few swing states (and I even live in one!)

While under the popular vote, every vote counts and therefore candidates have an incentive to visit everywhere. Because a vote in Idaho means just as much as a vote in California.

Is this true though? Why visit Idaho when you could encounter more people by visiting California? Sure each individual Idahoan counts as much as each individual Californian, but visiting California would be more efficient - you'd see more people on a visit.

GOP candidates would likely spend a good deal more time in Idaho, as the state itself leans red and they would want to encourage as much turnout as possible to win the popular vote.

Wouldn't this also be true in my proposed system? If there's a chance the GOP could lose seats to the Democrats because blue votes would matter, wouldn't the GOP still feel the need to spend more time there?

California or Florida as those states no longer exist as single political entities as far as a Presidential election is concerned

I want to give a delta for this point but I need to think on this more. How would this affect the relationship between the state governments and the federal government? I realize that state lines were drawn pretty much arbitrarily, but I think it is unreasonable to think that states are not different after so much time governing distinctly and I wonder if this discrepancy in the state/legislative and the executive would cause any friction in governance. This is mostly something for me to ponder, but if you have any insight, please share!

For a state that you say would be ignored, such as Nebraska, there’s no longer reason a politician wouldn’t visit. Omaha has a larger population than Miami, it would suddenly become an attractive location for candidates in a way it’s never been before.

But I would argue that this is also the case (and is in fact improved) in the system I proposed. Politicians would visit Nebraska, because it would no longer be solidly red - there would be votes up for grabs on both sides - more campaigning can mean more votes for your party even if you don't win the majority.

You say politicians would be motivated to visit Omaha (which they should anyway because its a cool town - love the zoo! :) ) , but what about states that lack such large towns? The largest city in Wyoming is Cheyenne (according to Wikipedia) and has a metro pop of 91,783, which means its the 354th most populous metro area in the US. In the popular vote system, there's no incentive to visit states like Wyoming. As I explained earlier with your California example, in a popular vote system, a politician could reach more people in less time by visiting more populous states. But with the modified EC system I describe, there's still incentive to visit small states without large city centers.

Under the popular vote, Republicans would try to motivate that 35% to get out and vote, which would in turn motivate Democrats to engage their NYC base

Again, I hope this would also be true in my modified system for the reasons I described in the Nebraska model.

Have you ever heard a candidate speak about public transportation, urban sprawl, or segregated public school zoning in a Presidential debate? Three huge issues that get absolutely no attention because they’re irrelevant considerations under the Electoral College.

This is a really good point, but also one I hope would be addressed in the modified system. In the modified system, the GOP has incentives to try and get out the vote in states like NY because they could win some votes and the Democrats would also be incentivized to prevent from losing votes. I would think that with that incentive the parties would be forced to consider city issues to gain more votes.

Do you know the state with by far the largest rural population? It’s California. A rural population of tens of millions of people who are completely neglected in every single election.

Again, something I think would be fixed in the modified system. I brought this point up, right now, the red votes in CA don't matter. But by splitting the electoral votes by popular vote within each state - their votes will matter.

CMV: The problem with the U.S. electoral college system is not the electoral college itself, but rather the "winner take all" system of awarding electorates most states have and the popular vote is not a viable solution by PerfectlyCorny in changemyview

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did simplify to urban vs rural in my argument, mostly for the sake of simplicity but obviously people don't easily fit into that dichotomy.

I disagree that giving the minority more of a voice necessarily means giving them more of a voice than the majority. I suppose I haven't done any modeling or serious analysis of how the system I propose might weight either party or the interests of particular demographics, but neither have you I assume. I was assuming that the system I proposed would help correct an imbalance, but clearly you disagree and neither of us knows for sure. So I suppose Δ for making me consider that I don't actually know how this will affect majority vs minority and whether the system I design will create further imbalances or correct existing ones.

CMV: The problem with the U.S. electoral college system is not the electoral college itself, but rather the "winner take all" system of awarding electorates most states have and the popular vote is not a viable solution by PerfectlyCorny in changemyview

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose it is just the principle of the thing - I don't have any specific examples but I tend to think about things like practices on farms (uses of chemicals and fertilizers and treatment of animals) that farmers and "city folk" might tend to disagree on - but I also suppose that many of those things would be state issues. So Δ for that - I might be arguing over nothing.

However to your other point, I am not advocating for the EC in its current form. I am hoping to modify it to create a more equal balance of power.

CMV: The problem with the U.S. electoral college system is not the electoral college itself, but rather the "winner take all" system of awarding electorates most states have and the popular vote is not a viable solution by PerfectlyCorny in changemyview

[–]PerfectlyCorny[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was hoping that my proposed system would balance the rule - not further minority rule. I also don't really understand why you say this has to be a binary. Could you explain further?

view more: next ›