Support NeoGAF

[Voras]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This time, it failed Democrats and progressives throughout the nation. Reacting brashly and moving to abolish the electoral college would be a step in the wrong direction.

When an election doesn't go our way, the correct way to react is to not change the election system so it now always favors Democrats. It's to fight back within the existing political system that has defined our nation and push for Democratic change in the states where we failed.

That isn't really what the electoral college does. It helps small states in small ways because while the numbers are somewhat proportional they aren't fully. But ultimately the system only gives a voice to a small number of states that go back and forth between Blue and Red. If you don't live in one of those handful of states the Electoral College makes your vote for president meaningless. California isn't going to go Red, most states won't change from being consistently one side. It means that California despite having 12% of the population of the country ultimately doesn't matter to the candidates running. They know California won't actually flip so why bother with it.

It actually probably hurts small states more than it helps. How much time do presidential candidates spend in Montana or Wyoming? It doesn't matter if someone wins the state with 51% or 98%, those additional votes don't matter. In a popular vote system those votes do matter. The difference in popular vote between Bush and Gore was a little over 500k votes. In close races that makes every state and every vote count. How does that not benefit small states more than the vote of only Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan mattering? Sure sometimes Ohio is in play, sometimes Nevada could be enough to tip it but on the whole a lot of states are completely disenfranchised by the system. Their problems don't matter to the president because they won't help them get elected.

 

[WorldStar]

There should be a second vote 50 days after the first vote that is essentially "is this what you really want? Y/N" you know, after all the cabinet picks and Russian influences are revealed.

or dems can get off their ass and vote the first time around

last thing we need to do is further enable their laziness, complacency, apathy, and arrogance

 

[Guileless]

Politics aside, Pres. Obama is a marvel. He is the political equivalent of the marathoner with the 30 beats per minute heart rate. He would be the staring contest world champion.

 

[Aeriscloud]

Never Forget

 

[pigeon]

I have a really hard time believing that everyone would be a-okay with Trump's win if the electoral college wasn't a thing and he won by popular vote. People would be outraged like they were about Brexit saying that it's mob rule and most people are just dumb and can't be trusted with a vote for something so important.

"I think you guys are all dishonest hacks" is just not a super compelling argument.

 

[cLOUDo]

There is a link to watch the conference?
Or maybe a summary of what he days

 

[GuyKazama]

I have a really hard time believing that everyone would be a-okay with Trump's win if the electoral college wasn't a thing and he won by popular vote. People would be outraged like they were about Brexit saying that it's mob rule and most people are just dumb and can't be trusted with a vote for something so important.

Democrats have never lost an election. It was rigged, the electorate was tricked, or was all a Republican conspiracy. Every time.

The thing is that Democrats have a clear path to victory if they listen to Obama or Bill Clinton. Campaign outside of the urban areas and spread your message. I think this strategy will win out in the end, and the EC talk will go away for at least 4 more years.

 

[Acorn]

it appears that others disagree with you

I'm cognizant of that but considering both candidate's unfavourables I would perhaps subscribe to the view most or a large minority deemed both unsuitable.

 

[WorldStar]

I'm cognizant of that but considering both candidate's unfavourables I would perhaps subscribe to the view most or a large minority deemed both unsuitable.

Can't say I can really disagree with that

 

[kirby_fox]

So let me get this straight

The EC exists to counter the popular vote if a markedly unqualified individual wins

The EC will never counter the popular vote because of precedent and laws designed to punish faithless electors

Therefore, the EC doesn't serve it's intended purpose and is ultimately useless, even a hindrance to actual democracy

And worse it probably can't be dissolved, removed, or altered.

The fact states decided to make rules that legally binded electors to their duties basically voids the intended use of it in the first place. Funny how this was a more recent law in some states...

 

[plagiarize]

Democrats have never lost an election. It was rigged, the electorate was tricked, or was all a Republican conspiracy. Every time.

The thing is that Democrats have a clear path to victory if they listen to Obama or Bill Clinton. Campaign outside of the urban areas and spread your message. I think this strategy will win out in the end, and the EC talk will go away for at least 4 more years.

And I'm sure the national popular vote group will keep on making progress whether people are talking about it or not, just as they have over the last twelve years when the president was also the person who won the popular vote.

 

[FullMetalx117]

All this talk about eliminating the electoral college...it really does come off as whining. Yes it is unfortunate that while Clinton secured more popular votes from key cities such as Los Angeles and New York, she still ended up losing. But there ARE advantages for having an EC. As someone earlier in the thread stated, this is one country and the smaller states should have their voices to be heard.

Under this SAME "relic" system, Obama decisively won in 2008 and 2012. He turned red states blue. The arrogance in this election allowed a "democratic stronghold" like Wisconsin to turn red. Yup there's definitely more underlying problems present here than the way the EC operates.

 

[Yayate]

All this talk about eliminating the electoral college...it really does come off as whining. Yes it is unfortunate that while Clinton secured more popular votes from key cities such as Los Angeles and New York, she still ended up losing. But there ARE advantages for having an EC. As someone earlier in the thread stated, this is one country and the smaller states should have their voices to be heard.

Under this SAME "relic" system, Obama decisively won in 2008 and 2012. He turned red states blue. The arrogance in this election allowed a "democratic stronghold" like Wisconsin to turn red. Yup there's definitely more underlying problems present here than the way the EC operates.

A single vote in Wyoming shouldn't be wortg this much more than a vote in Cali. It isn't letting the voices of small states be heard, its silencing the most populated ones.

 

[pigeon]

All this talk about eliminating the electoral college...it really does come off as whining. Yes it is unfortunate that while Clinton secured more popular votes from key cities such as Los Angeles and New York, she still ended up losing. But there ARE advantages for having an EC. As someone earlier in the thread stated, this is one country and the smaller states should have their voices to be heard.

Under this SAME "relic" system, Obama decisively won in 2008 and 2012. He turned red states blue. The arrogance in this election allowed a "democratic stronghold" like Wisconsin to turn red. Yup there's definitely more underlying problems present here than the way the EC operates.

The smaller states are already overrepresented in the House and Senate.

Why should people in California have less of a voice in American government?

 

[ant_]

The smaller states are already overrepresented in the House and Senate.

Why should people in California have less of a voice in American government?

The only people whose voice is not heard on a national level in California is conservatives.

 

[Nafai1123]

The only people whose voice is not heard on a national level in California is conservatives.

Which would be resolved by using the popular vote.

 

[KingSnake]

This conference and the end of Obama's presidency:

 

[ZOONAMI]

The smaller states are already overrepresented in the House and Senate.

Why should people in California have less of a voice in American government?

Well, right, this is the crux of the issue with people defending the electoral college because of smaller states. They are arguing against states with larger populations having more influence by advocating for a disproportionate system?

It doesn't make sense. Not to mention that isn't even why the electoral college exists but is just a negative side effect of there now being 50 states instead of less than 13, and smaller states having a disproportionate # of senators and house members given their populations. The intention was to prevent an unqualified or traitorous candidate from attaining the office in the first place.

 

[ant_]

Which would be resolved by using the popular vote.

Popular vote is not the right approach. Majority rule can quickly get out of control.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Popular vote is not the right approach. Majority rule can quickly get out of control.

Yeah so let's install a fascist so we can have more control. It's gonna be great.

 

[theignoramus]

I see alot of liberals on twitter furious that Obama didnt throw out the partisan red meat they wanted. That's not been his personality this entire election cycle, why would it change now? I feel like the liberal outrage toward Obama is directly proportionate to their pre-election faith that Trump would lose. Now they are shocked, scared and want drastic, reactionary measures from a President whose never been prone to that style his entire time in office.

 

[Nafai1123]

Popular vote is not the right approach. Majority rule can quickly get out of control.

Yes, because this election represents the will of the people so well...

 

[Already Torn]

Popular vote is not the right approach. Majority rule can quickly get out of control.

Because letting rural white people have the biggest say worked so well

 

[FullMetalx117]

Well, right, this is the crux of the issue with people defending the electoral college because of smaller states. They are arguing against states with larger populations having more influence by advocating for a disproportionate system?

It doesn't make sense. Not to mention that isn't even why the electoral college exists but is just a negative side effect of there now being 50 states instead of less than 13, and smaller states having a disproportionate # of senators and house members given their populations. The intention was to prevent an unqualified or traitorous candidate from attaining the office in the first place.

While it's hard to argue against brute population numbers there is a certain degree of importance that must be placed on the lifestyle of people. The lifestyle of people in the midwest is vastly different from those that live in Los Angeles. Hell one could argue that lifestyles are more similar between people in NYC/LA (tourist hubs) than people in NY/any midwest state even though New York is closer to the rust belt. The EC helps in that it doesn't skew the direction of a country based on lifestyles found on the coast.

Regardless...under this "flawed" system Obama handily won and help setup what could've been a potential landslide due to his popularity. Hillary and DNC have no excuses.

 

[Imperfected]

Popular vote is not the right approach. Majority rule can quickly get out of control.

Could you knock this off?

The EC-weighted bias voting is not somehow better or less prone to "tyranny of the majoirty". It has the same exact inherent problems that political theorists warn about with tyranny of the majority, because it's still taking a majority, it's just polling that majority from limited regions (the swing states) rather than the country as a whole.

It's got all of the same inherent disadvantages and dangers as a popular vote, with the added benefit of being completely counter-intuitive. That's it. That's the end of it.

If you're a Republican and you want to hang on to the Electoral College because it directly benefits Republicans to do so, be honest about it. This bullshit about how it somehow protects from the "tyranny of the majority" is intellectually dishonest when all it does is subject a wider region to the tyranny of the majority in a small region.

 

[ZOONAMI]

While it's hard to argue against brute population numbers there is a certain degree of importance that must be placed on the lifestyle of people. The lifestyle of people in the midwest is vastly different from those that live in Los Angeles. Hell one could argue that lifestyles are more similar between people in NYC/LA (tourist hubs) than people in NY/any midwest state even though New York is closer to the rust belt. The EC helps in that it doesn't skew the direction of a country based on lifestyles found on the coast.

Regardless...under this "flawed" system Obama handily won and help setup what could've been a potential landslide due to his popularity. Hillary and DNC have no excuses.

I live in the midwest and I don't think my lifestyle is vastly different than someone who lives in NYC or LA.

I live in Minneapolis, and have friends in NYC and LA and visit often, sure, rent is more expensive, but that is mitigated with roommates, who I have also lived with in Minneapolis. I don't think Kansas City, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. are really all that different than the coastal cities either.

Certainly, living in a rural environment is somewhat different, I grew up in a town of less than 4,000 people, but I don't think it makes anyone incapable of empathy for people who live in cities or vice versa. If that's the case you're an asshole, and that's on you, and has nothing to do with where you live.

There are cost of living differences of course but I don't think that gives rural America the right to have a disproportionate vote in our presidential elections.

And I agree that a Democrat can win using the electoral college system, but the problem is that Hillary won the popular vote by millions of votes, and we are instead installing a vile man who is demonstrably racist, sexist, and fascist, and had the help of a foreign power exposing his opponent's party and campaign's inner workings.

There is a fucking problem here.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Could you knock this off?

The EC-weighted bias voting is not somehow better or less prone to "tyranny of the majoirty". It has the same exact inherent problems that political theorists warn about with tyranny of the majority, because it's still taking a majority, it's just polling that majority from limited regions (the swing states) rather than the country as a whole.

It's got all of the same inherent disadvantages and dangers as a popular vote, with the added benefit of being completely counter-intuitive. That's it. That's the end of it.

If you're a Republican and you want to hang on to the Electoral College because it directly benefits Republicans to do so, be honest about it. This bullshit about how it somehow protects from the "tyranny of the majority" is intellectually dishonest when all it does is subject a wider region to the tyranny of the majority in a small region.

^ This

 

[ant_]

Could you knock this off?

The EC-weighted bias voting is not somehow better or less prone to "tyranny of the majoirty". It has the same exact inherent problems that political theorists warn about with tyranny of the majority, because it's still taking a majority, it's just polling that majority from limited regions (the swing states) rather than the country as a whole.

It's got all of the same inherent disadvantages and dangers as a popular vote, with the added benefit of being completely counter-intuitive. That's it. That's the end of it.

If you're a Republican and you want to hang on to the Electoral College because it directly benefits Republicans to do so, be honest about it. This bullshit about how it somehow protects from the "tyranny of the majority" is intellectually dishonest when all it does is subject a wider region to the tyranny of the majority in a small region.

I'm not Republican, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Not surprised that you made this assumption, though.

I disagree with the statements you're positing. If anything, the results of the election show it. Despite the majority of the country's people wanting to elect Hillary Clinton, the minority (in this case, white nationalists) made their voice heard on a national level.

As disgusting and unwanted as this may be, it's how the American political system is designed. This time it works in our disadvantage. I'm afraid to abolish it because I think Democrats may need the electoral college in the future as white nationalism becomes more prevalent.

 

[jackal27]

Could you knock this off?

The EC-weighted bias voting is not somehow better or less prone to "tyranny of the majoirty". It has the same exact inherent problems that political theorists warn about with tyranny of the majority, because it's still taking a majority, it's just polling that majority from limited regions (the swing states) rather than the country as a whole.

It's got all of the same inherent disadvantages and dangers as a popular vote, with the added benefit of being completely counter-intuitive. That's it. That's the end of it.

If you're a Republican and you want to hang on to the Electoral College because it directly benefits Republicans to do so, be honest about it. This bullshit about how it somehow protects from the "tyranny of the majority" is intellectually dishonest when all it does is subject a wider region to the tyranny of the majority in a small region.

I agree. This stuff only worries me more and more as millennials and the population overall start to move to mega cities too. You're only going to see a more stark difference between those left in rural areas and the vast majority that live in major cities.

 

[PatThePassive]

While it's hard to argue against brute population numbers there is a certain degree of importance that must be placed on the lifestyle of people. The lifestyle of people in the midwest is vastly different from those that live in Los Angeles. Hell one could argue that lifestyles are more similar between people in NYC/LA (tourist hubs) than people in NY/any midwest state even though New York is closer to the rust belt. The EC helps in that it doesn't skew the direction of a country based on lifestyles found on the coast.

Regardless...under this "flawed" system Obama handily won and help setup what could've been a potential landslide due to his popularity. Hillary and DNC have no excuses.

^ No this

^ This

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I'm not Republican, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Not surprised that you made this assumption, though.

I disagree with the statements you're positing. If anything, the results of the election show it. Despite the majority of the country's people wanting to elect Hillary Clinton, the minority (in this case, white nationalists) made their voice heard on a national level.

As disgusting and unwanted as this may be, it's how the American political system is designed. This time it works in our disadvantage. I'm afraid to abolish it because I think Democrats may need the electoral college in the future as white nationalism becomes more prevalent.

Pretty sure it has always worked to the progressives disadvantage and as far as I understand there are already other governmental arms that favour smaller states disproportionately

 

[ZOONAMI]

I live in the midwest and I don't think my lifestyle is vastly different than someone who lives in NYC or LA.

I live in Minneapolis, and have friends in NYC and LA and visit often, sure, rent is more expensive, but that is mitigated with roommates, who I have also lived with in Minneapolis. I don't think Kansas City, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. are really all that different than the coastal cities either.

Certainly, living in a rural environment is somewhat different, I grew up in a town of less than 4,000 people, but I don't think it makes anyone incapable of empathy for people who live in cities or vice versa. If that's the case you're an asshole, and that's on you, and has nothing to do with where you live.

There are cost of living differences of course but I don't think that gives rural America the right to have a disproportionate vote in our presidential elections.

And I agree that a Democrat can win using the electoral college system, but the problem is that Hillary won the popular vote by millions of votes, and we are instead installing a vile man who is demonstrably racist, sexist, and fascist, and had the help of a foreign power exposing his opponent's party and campaign's inner workings.

There is a fucking problem here.

^ No this

Yeah I already responded to that.

 

[Imperfected]

I disagree with the statements you're positing. If anything, the results of the election show it. Despite the majority of the country's people wanting to elect Hillary Clinton, the minority (in this case, white nationalists) made their voice heard on a national level.

Listen, if I have a thousand people in a room, and I decide that instead of taking a vote of all thousand of them as to what we should order on a pizza I should just pick ten at random and ask them, I haven't saved them from the tyranny of the majority. I have:

1. Probably disenfranchised or at least slighted ninety-nine percent of the people in the room.
2. Made a much easier job for myself counting. (Great success!)
3. Introduced an enormous level of risk of statistical anomaly into what is still, like it or not, a popular vote.

I have done nothing to protect the pizza-eaters in my audience from majority control. They're still going to get whatever type of pizza a majority of the people polled want, I've only managed to introduce the possibility that majority doesn't actually represent the larger majority I'm actually beholden to. (Great success?)

To protect against tyranny of the majority, you don't just have to bias voting, you have to purposefully bias voting. That means you have to decide that some people are uniquely qualified to vote and some others are not. This should be starting to sound pretty bad at this point, because honestly, it really is.

To go back to my example, I could, instead of choosing ten people completely at random, choose ten people I know have the highest IQ in the room. Congratulations! We're no longer subject to the tyranny of the majority; we now have a sort of clumsy meritocracy. (G-Great success...?)

If you want to look at it from a different perspective, what are the dangers endemic to a majority vote that you would want to address?

1. The majority is under-qualified to select a candidate and incapable of realizing if a candidate they have selected is dangerously under-qualified, themselves. (Hmm...)
2. Minority groups within the electorate are at risk due to not having a strong enough voice to dissent against majority control and the potential for discrimination or disenfranchisement as a result. (Hmm!)

I'm deeply curious how having only swing states actually select the president protects our democracy from either of these issues. (Hint: it doesn't.) Yes, the EC fucked up the election. The fact it fucked up the election isn't proof that it's "working", though; to be "working" it has to be doing what it was intended to do, not just doing something.

 

[UFO]

Could you knock this off?

If you're a Republican and you want to hang on to the Electoral College because it directly benefits Republicans to do so, be honest about it. This bullshit about how it somehow protects from the "tyranny of the majority" is intellectually dishonest when all it does is subject a wider region to the tyranny of the majority in a small region.

It doesn't help the Republican party at all. It didn't help in 2008, it didn't help in 2012, it didn't look like it was going to help during the weeks leading up to this election when nearly everyone was saying Trump had no roadmap to victory because he would have to flip Flordia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia or Wisconsin to get enough electoral votes to overcome Hillarys guaranteed wins in NY and California.

Complaining about the electoral college is fine, but doing it right now, directly after a Presidential election your candidate lost, makes you look like a sore loser. And suggesting that we should somehow overturn this election because of how unfair the EC is makes you look delusional.

 

[KingK]

While it's hard to argue against brute population numbers there is a certain degree of importance that must be placed on the lifestyle of people. The lifestyle of people in the midwest is vastly different from those that live in Los Angeles. Hell one could argue that lifestyles are more similar between people in NYC/LA (tourist hubs) than people in NY/any midwest state even though New York is closer to the rust belt. The EC helps in that it doesn't skew the direction of a country based on lifestyles found on the coast.

Regardless...under this "flawed" system Obama handily won and help setup what could've been a potential landslide due to his popularity. Hillary and DNC have no excuses.

This is largely bullshit, IMO. American culture is much more homogenized today (at least regionally speaking) than it ever has been, with cable and internet eliminating many regional barriers. I live in rural Indiana, near the Michigan border. Pretty much the epicenter of where the Trump upset occurred. My lifestyle and culture are not significantly different from other Americans due to my geography.

And even if they were, nobody has explained how it then follows that we should give some peoples' opinion more weight than others. We have a constitution and a judicial system that (ideally) protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. No reason to use a shitty system that says one vote is worth 5 points for these people, and 0.5 points for the people on the other side of this line we drew.

Can anybody who has a problem with elections being run on popular vote actually articulate a scenario where it's a bad thing that everybody's votes are worth the same points? And if so, could you then explain how giving more points to the rural (largely white) population somehow fixes the problem?

Could you knock this off?

The EC-weighted bias voting is not somehow better or less prone to "tyranny of the majoirty". It has the same exact inherent problems that political theorists warn about with tyranny of the majority, because it's still taking a majority, it's just polling that majority from limited regions (the swing states) rather than the country as a whole.

It's got all of the same inherent disadvantages and dangers as a popular vote, with the added benefit of being completely counter-intuitive. That's it. That's the end of it.

If you're a Republican and you want to hang on to the Electoral College because it directly benefits Republicans to do so, be honest about it. This bullshit about how it somehow protects from the "tyranny of the majority" is intellectually dishonest when all it does is subject a wider region to the tyranny of the majority in a small region.

Yup.

Edit: I was eight years old when Bush beat Gore. I didn't even have political opinions yet, and my parents actually voted for Bush, but I felt it was bullshit then and nothing since has been able to convince me the EC is a good idea. I wasn't just suddenly against this because Hillary lost. I didn't even like Hillary.

 

[minor effort]

It doesn't help the Republican party at all. It didn't help in 2008, it didn't help in 2012, it didn't look like it was going to help during the weeks leading up to this election when nearly everyone was saying Trump had no roadmap to victory because he would have to flip Flordia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia or Wisconsin to get enough electoral votes to overcome Hillarys guaranteed wins in NY and California.

Complaining about the electoral college is fine, but doing it right now, directly after a Presidential election your candidate lost, makes you look like a sore loser. And suggesting that we should somehow overturn this election because of how unfair the EC is makes you look delusional.

The last two times a president won the EC without winning a popular vote majority were to the GOP's benefit. That's twice in sixteen years. There's no time in modern history that Democrats managed an EC win without also winning the popular vote. I'd say that's at least to some degree beneficial towards Republicans.

EDIT: I'll also say this. Looking like a sore loser is the least of my concern right now, and it should be the least of Democrats' concern as well. Republicans certainly looked like sore losers in 2008 when they whined about Obama in an election and with a winning candidate of far fewer red flags than this current one. They stated their intention to make him a "one term president" from day one. They tried to call his place of birth into question to delegitimize the man and his presidency. Hell, a number of them went out and started doing Revolutionary War cosplay on the weekends because they were so upset. And look at them now! They're back in control of everything, the White House, the Senate, and the House. Those "sour grapes" didn't matter to their voters.

So yeah, sour grapes are not my concern. Democratic complacency is my concern.

EDIT 2:

Do you have any arguments for why the EC has actual utility and validity, or is it just "it's bad optics to complain"?

Because frankly, I could give a fuck. The Republican Party has done a bang-up job proving that optics don't mean a single thing. Anyone who still restrains themselves for the sake of decorum in this new political environment obviously wasn't paying attention.

I mean, what, is the Party of Putin going to stop cheering for outright sedition and treachery to call me a sore loser? Oh no, whatever the flying fuck will I do?

Exactly.

 

[Imperfected]

Complaining about the electoral college is fine, but doing it right now, directly after a Presidential election your candidate lost, makes you look like a sore loser. And suggesting that we should somehow overturn this election because of how unfair the EC is makes you look delusional.

Do you have any arguments for why the EC has actual utility and validity, or is it just "it's bad optics to complain"?

Because frankly, I could give a fuck. The Republican Party has done a bang-up job proving that optics don't mean a single thing. Anyone who still restrains themselves for the sake of decorum in this new political environment obviously wasn't paying attention.

I mean, what, is the Party of Putin going to stop cheering for outright sedition and treachery to call me a sore loser? Oh no, whatever the flying fuck will I do?

 

[PatThePassive]

Yeah I already responded to that.

I saw the response however and still believe the person your responding to is correct

There is a problem with the EC, but switching to the popular vote is not the solution, I would like a better alternative and we will have to wait until there is one.

So the no this still applies.

Do you have any arguments for why the EC has actual utility and validity, or is it just "it's bad optics to complain"?

Because frankly, I could give a fuck. The Republican Party has done a bang-up job proving that optics don't mean a single thing. Anyone who still restrains themselves for the sake of decorum in this new political environment obviously wasn't paying attention.

I mean, what, is the Party of Putin going to stop cheering for outright sedition and treachery to call me a sore loser? Oh no, whatever the flying fuck will I do?

How about instead of switching from the EC we look at the factors and how such a asinine method succeeded, I know its not an immediate solution but the nation and system has survived worse.

Unless Trump surpasses the past which would be something.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I saw the response however and still believe the person your responding to is correct

There is a problem with the EC, but switching to the popular vote is not the solution, I would like a better alternative and we will have to wait until there is one.

So the no this still applies.

You can either go popular vote, which is proportional, and would make sense for a county consistently at least in its messaging extols the virtues of democracy, or you can adjust the EC by adding more congressional districts in the most populous states, removing senate based EC votes, splitting states EC votes based on their popular vote, etc. All of those those things essentially would be taking steps to make the EC more representative of the popular vote, but you might as well just move to a full representative democracy, at least for the presidential vote. The president represents everyone, unlike virtually every other elected official, and thus one vote should not be worth more than another.

 

[Silent Chief]

I disagree with the statements you're positing. If anything, the results of the election show it. Despite the majority of the country's people wanting to elect Hillary Clinton, the minority (in this case, white nationalists) made their voice heard on a national level.

As disgusting and unwanted as this may be, it's how the American political system is designed. This time it works in our disadvantage. I'm afraid to abolish it because I think Democrats may need the electoral college in the future as white nationalism becomes more prevalent.

That's a crazy argument.

The whole concept of democracy is based on the most popular candidate gaining power.
Anything else is a travesty.

Now, it's different in the senate and the house were candidates represent geological areas and the number of elected candidates does not necessary mirror the parties popularity. There's not reason for that dissymmetry to exist at the national level.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

I mean the greatest use for the Electoral College existing is to stop a dangerous populist candidate like Trump, if it can't do that, it really serves no purpose.

 

[UFO]

Do you have any arguments for why the EC has actual utility and validity, or is it just "it's bad optics to complain"?

Because it's the United States of America, and it insures that populous cities like NYC don't have more say for the whole country then multiply states combined.

There are elected officials like mayors, senators, governors and senators who are elected by the people of New York and of NYC to ensure they're voices are heard and their lives are represented. But they shouldn't have an overwhelming say about what happens in the entire country.

You can either go popular vote, which is proportional, and would make sense for a county consistently at least in its messaging extols the virtues of democracy, or you can adjust the EC by adding more congressional districts in the most populous states, removing senate based EC votes, splitting states EC votes based on their popular vote, etc. All of those those things essentially would be taking steps to make the EC more representative of the popular vote, but you might as well just move to a full representative democracy, at least for the presidential vote. The president represents everyone, unlike virtually every other elected official, and thus one vote should not be worth more than another.

This is really the best idea imo. Splitting the EC vote in states that have large cities and large rural areas.

 

[PatThePassive]

You can either go popular vote, which is proportional, and would make sense for a county consistently at least in its messaging extols the virtues of democracy, or you can adjust the EC by adding more congressional districts in the most populous states, removing senate based EC votes, splitting states EC votes based on their popular vote, etc. All of those those things essentially would be taking steps to make the EC more representative of the popular vote, but you might as well just move to a full representative democracy, at least for the presidential vote. The president represents everyone, unlike virtually every other elected official, and thus one vote should not be worth more than another.

I'm aware that currently we are talking about either EC or popular vote but I would rather something like a change to a third party system (as likely as switching to popular vote)

Or another change that stops the current divide and flaws of the bipartisan system and allows the checks and balances to work as intended EC included.

I knew Obama loved his wet lettuce for his foreign policy, but this takes the cake. He told Putin to "cut it out or else"...? Really? Putin probably laughed in his face.

Again with this? when does the draft start? the most we can use is economic force and even then only to a certain amount. What is your desired action.

 

[Machina]

I knew Obama loved his wet lettuce for his foreign policy, but this takes the cake. He told Putin to "cut it out or else"...? Really? Putin probably laughed in his face.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Because it's the United States of America, and it insures that populous cities like NYC don't have more say for the whole country then multiply states combined.

There are elected officials like mayors, senators, governors and senators who are elected by the people of New York and of NYC to ensure they're voices are heard and their lives are represented. But they shouldn't have an overwhelming say about what happens in the entire country.

Either way rural states or "the cities" will have more power with the system. Why should rural states have more power over the country vs. the progressive cities in which the majority of Americans live? Your argument only makes sense if every vote is equal, they are not.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Because it's the United States of America, and it insures that populous cities like NYC don't have more say for the whole country then multiply states combined.

There are elected officials like mayors, senators, governors and senators who are elected by the people of New York and of NYC to ensure they're voices are heard and their lives are represented. But they shouldn't have an overwhelming say about what happens in the entire country.

But take the Senate. NY has 2 senators just like NC despite the latter having half the populace.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I'm aware that currently we are talking about either EC or popular vote but I would rather something like a change to a third party system (as likely as switching to popular vote)

Or another change that stops the current divide and flaws of the bipartisan system and allows the checks and balances to work as intended EC included.



Again with this? when does the draft start? the most we can use is economic force and even then only to a certain amount. What is your desired action.

Popular vote would allow for a viable 3rd party.

The EC excludes it with its majority of all electoral votes.

I suppose you could change it to a simple majority to allow for a viable 3rd party, but if you're going to change the EC to allow for a viable third party you might as well scrap it all together as it would achieve the same result.

You still haven't provided any actual reasons for the continued existence of the EC, and the rural argument as been refuted repeatedly and everyone pro EC just keeps ignoring those arguments.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I mean the greatest use for the Electoral College existing is to stop a dangerous populist candidate like Trump, if it can't do that, it really serves no purpose.

This. All this bullshit about getting the EC to elect someone else on the 19th is hilarious. We all know it's not going to happen. The EC is supposed to stop someone like Trump. If it doesn't then it's not doing its job.

 

[Funkyhamster]

Because it's the United States of America, and it insures that populous cities like NYC don't have more say for the whole country then multiply states combined.

There are elected officials like mayors, senators, governors and senators who are elected by the people of New York and of NYC to ensure they're voices are heard and their lives are represented. But they shouldn't have an overwhelming say about what happens in the entire country.



This is really the best idea imo. Splitting the EC vote in states that have large cities and large rural areas.

A more populated area shouldn't have more say than a less populated area? In other words, some peoples' votes should count more than others in the presidential election?

I think it's important for all minority groups in this country to be emphathized with, treated fairly, protected by the law, etc, but explicitly giving disproportionate political power to any particular minority group just because they don't happen to be in the majority seems to go against the idea of democracy.

 

[PatThePassive]

Popular vote would allow for a viable 3rd party.

The EC excludes it with its majority of all electoral votes.

I suppose you could change it to a simple majority to allow for a viable 3rd party, but if you're going to change the EC to allow for a viable third party you might as well scrap it all together as it would achieve the same result.

You still haven't provided any actual reasons for the continued existence of the EC, and the rural argument as been refuted repeatedly and everyone pro EC just keeps ignoring those arguments.

The current structure prevents a third party yes, I'm speaking of solutions as likely as the switch to popular vote and preferable in my opinion.

I understand the complaints of states with larger populations not having as much say but that's the whole "equal representation " thing unless you actually believe that popular vote is "equal" I'm sure Rhode Island would just give up voting altogether as well as other states.

Rhode Islands vote would equal 1/38 of California in popular vote, hell I could see Presidents from then on all being from either California or New York

The Senate is meant to represent the STATES equally, the House of Representatives is meant to represent the population equally.

But how does that stop Trump? Gafs primary concern and rightfully so