[Slog Bait]

There's so many words I keep losing track of what's happening in this thread

What you said is very reasonable. However, don’t forget that the President and Congress often end up bitterly opposed to one another (which is what our founding fathers wanted, a quarreling federal government that doesn’t get too much done in too little time); there’s a reason “lame ducks” are a thing. The President and Congress are much more unified when they’re part of the same political party (something our founding fathers didn’t consider, and what George Washington warned against in his parting speech), which leads into what you said next:

They did consider it, though. A government made up of a single unified party is an authoritarian regime. They didn't want the country to be founded on authoritarianism, but they also didn't want a two party system because it invites corruption too easily. With several dissenting views present, rather than just two parties dicking up the place split 50/50 and shutting down the government every few months because of polarization, people come to a middle ground far more easily because it'd be split up in a way where some parties would be more inclined to go for x, while others would go for y, and a few would go for z.

The party loyalty pressure would still be there, but instead of there being a hard split down the center you'd have Libertarians, for example, voting in favour of stuff like net neutrality and suppressing government interference along side the Democrats likely voting for net neutrality while voting for more government interference and Republicans voting against net neutrality and against government interference. It would actually allow things to get passed, and the president would stop being so at odds with congress. Sure they may represent a party, or they could be totally independent, but with more varying views within congress it prevents shut downs and roadblocks from happening as often as they do with a two party system.

If you ask me, a popular vote system just neuters third parties and indie candidates even more. Look at Evan McMullin – he won a substantial chunk of Utah’s voters, at 21%. This might sound insignificant, but “a fifth of Utah” is a lot more galvanizing than “less than one percent of the total US population.” Once the day arrives when a third party/independent candidate seizes the electoral votes of even a single state, that will rock America’s political world more than any percentage could.

Aside from that, could you elaborate how abolishing the Electoral College would loosen the two-party system? Yes, our two main political parties do have electors of their own in every state, but I don’t think they really need the Electorate to survive. They would need their hold over Congressional elections loosened as well, somehow.

Candidates that are native to a state regardless of party affiliation are likely to either win the state or win a large chunk of the state. McMullin is an example of this, as is Reagan.

A popular vote system tells people that their votes actually matter, and will likely lead to a significantly higher voter turn out. One of the major reasons people don't bother voting is because with the system we currently have, they feel like their vote doesn't matter worth a damn. (x)(x)

With the winner-take-all nature of the electorate on top of the fact that they've never actually exercised their "true purpose", hypothetically a third party member could win the popular vote in a landslide but not get a single electoral vote because they didn't win enough counties in every state. That's absolutely garbage and I find it hard to defend a system where that's possible. It's like when you posted that picture of the electoral map for the 2016 elections. PA, and MI were within 1% of a loss for Hillary in those states. FL and WY were within 5%. Hell, even down to the counties, the county I had voted in Trump had only won by about 3%, and it was in an incredibly loyal red county that has never come that close to flipping before.

Also, none of the third party candidates in any of the elections since 1924 I believe that won counties across the nation got a single electoral vote. Even if you really firmly believe the electoral college needs to stay, at the very least I believe you can agree that the winner-take-all aspect of the electorate needs to be dropped. And even then, what happens if they win the popular vote nation wide, but other parties cut in front by having a 1-10% lead on them in every county? The winner as dictated by the electoral college would be be absolutely crushed when comparing who got the popular vote of that election cycle.

There's obviously a lot of things that need to be done to get us to where we need to be. We need future generations to be properly educated on how our system works so we're not so polarized with the road bump of party loyalty from causing as much clashes within our congress. We need to give rural Americans steady living and education so they're given the opportunity to actually look into the candidates available and don't impulse vote because someone said they're gonna create jobs they're desperate for or just vote party loyalty because they believe their party always has their best interests in mind and aren't subject to changing as time goes on, and so on. We need to severely overhaul our election system to give a fair chance to people who aren't backed entirely by big business and banks. We need to get more variety in congress, and the best way to do that is likely to give more coverage for non-presidential elections within the communities they effect. And so on, and so on...

I do firmly believe that the electoral college remains one of our biggest roadblocks to allowing a third party candidate a chance at taking office. There's a lot of hypothetical situations regarding any of the elections in the past century I could pull up, but at this point I think you see my POV and understand why I feel the way I do. I can also see why you feel the way you do and I feel like, unless something said is unclear or contradictory, this is a good point to agree to disagree and part ways with the conversation. At least, in a public space. I'm chill with chatting in private about it from time to time but this thread is a big ol mess of text walls so I'd be more than glad to ditch it.

I’m guessing the neighborhood was filled with loud yapping around the clock.

Honestly I hardly noticed it over the city ambiance. It just sort of blends in.

It's not that large latino populations are the issue (heck, it was Florida’s large population of Cubans, who often lean conservative, that allowed the state to go red). There's this general concern that people who live here contrary to the law (not saying latinos; Trump got heckled by an illegal Brit one time) will also live contrary to the law.

It's pretty much rule of thumb that latino populations largely vote red.

And I get that, but that concern is only caused from fear mongering by people who have that whole nationality superiority complex (xenophobia, radical nationalism). It's why there's some criticism on referring to undocumented immigrants as 'illegals'. Being here past the time you were permitted isn't a criminal offense, just strongly discouraged because the state can't keep an eye on you, and you can't be arrested for it in the majority of states unless you do commit a crime while here undocumented. Once you do commit a crime while undocumented, you're permanently barred entry from the country.

It's a fairly irrational concern to believe that someone who lives here without the right visa is by default a criminal. It's not too far off to compare it to refugees with free range but far far more to lose by being here. If you moved or escaped to some place, you'd likely want to stay there, especially if you have a family. You wouldn't want to risk separation or putting them or yourself at risk. It's why first generation immigrants are usually so good for communities and the economy: because they're on their best behavior lest they be kicked out permanently or imprisoned.

However, saying that this renders any strengthening of border defense futile is very much like saying that there’s no hope in having some technicians fix a broken computer, since banging on it to make it go faster didn’t work already – the “banging” being self-defeating catch-and-release tactics (which Trump ended through an executive order). Maybe taking them in for a more in-depth background check will be more effective? We’ll have to see.

That's also not what I was saying. And a more accurate comparison would be upgrading a perfectly functional $2k tower to like a $20k tower with 5 gpus and 500tb of memory and 160gb of ram and a whole load of other shit that's beyond overkill and a total blubbering waste of money and resources.

What the fuck would you do with all that??? Why would you even do that when what you have right now is perfectly functional?

If you really wanted to "tighten the border" just have more security trained and patrolling the border. It'd be cheaper, it generates jobs, and it doesn't take 10 years and impose even more on the environment and our wildlife. As far as the jobs that building the wall would create goes, let's go back to all that infrastructure that needs fixing up because our infrastructure is severely lacking, to say the least. Mmm, infrastructure.