# Should We Get Rid of the Electoral College?



## SG854 (Mar 19, 2019)

This is something i’ve been wanting to talk about for along time.

It mostly comes up when people are discussing that Trump should’ve lost because Hillary won the popular vote. It’s something that always makes me laugh because the popular vote part always comes up everytime and because they want to get rid of the electoral college because their side lost the election.

So getting rid of the electoral college is a crazy idea, and hopefully people learned in school why the electoral college is important for representation of smaller groups. Imagine that whites being the majority voted for stuff that benefits only them and blacks being the minority are outnumber and gets nothing passed to benefit them. That’s what electoral colleges are.

If we abolish the Electoral College then only a few big counties with high population density (like in California, New York, and Washington) votes will matter and 95% of the counties votes won’t matter. There are higher concentration of people in urban areas. Rural areas will get screwed over. But we have many things prouduced in Rural areas one of them being food. People in Urban will only pass policies that only benefits people’s in cities and it will negatively affect food producers that the country relies on. Our founding fathers knew this which is why they created the electoral college.

A good anology i’ve seen online is imagine a World Series Baseball match and one team wins one game 16-2. The other team wins 4 games 1-0. One team has the most total points but lost most games. The electoral college makes it so the team that wins the most matches are champions and not the team that scores the most points in one game.

Getting rid of electoral college will mean smaller counties will give up their power and them voting for things that will help their very specific communities living style.

Hillary won the popular vote mostly due to California and if you got rid of California then she would’ve lost the popular vote. But Trump won the most electoral votes. Therefore was a valid win. And only a few times in history someone that won the popular vote lost the electoral vote. So getting rid of electoral college because of a few instances isnt a good idea and will back fire. Abraham Lincoln was one president that was hated with lower approval ratings then Trump, but became popular after he died.

So debate below if we should get rid of the electoral college.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2019)

There's no reason why some people's votes should be worth more than others'.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 20, 2019)

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!

In fact, democracy” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution of the United States of America (1789)

Universal suffrage was a mistake.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 20, 2019)

There are things I would sooner get rid of with regards to primaries (and variations thereof), systems that all buy assure two parties, a lot of the districts and ways they are assigned, define a better vote split method in said college (various states float between proportional and winner take all and the inconsistency bothers).

As far as the college itself then does it do the job? If you do want to boost the effective power of less dense populations/states does it serve to do that? How would one measure that? Does it matter in the face of boring two party setups? Do you really want to boost apparent power? Do we have any examples of things failing when power is not boosted? By how much should we boost things?

this video series has covers some things fairly well, though I am not sure about all of it (the metric of visits by prospective candidates for one, though there might be something to how many reassuring platitudes* would be politicos offer).
*I imagine we all agree campaign promises are typically all hot air.


----------



## regnad (Mar 20, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> Universal suffrage was a mistake.



Who would you exclude? The negroes? The womenfolk? The unwashed peasantry? The godless savages roaming the western prairies?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 20, 2019)

regnad said:


> Who would you exclude? The negroes? The womenfolk? The unwashed peasantry? The godless savages roaming the western prairies?



Those who don't pay taxes. Only net taxpayers should vote. Kinda how only landowners could only vote because there wasn't an income tax.


----------



## regnad (Mar 20, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> Those who don't pay taxes. Only net taxpayers should vote. Kinda how only landowners could only vote because there wasn't an income tax.



Would you have a cut off? Would one net tax cent be enough?

Would it be income tax only? So retired people wouldn’t be able to vote? What about people with severe disabilities that make them unable to work?

Would an entire household count as a unit, including unemployed homemakers dependent on their spouse?

Other than the obvious ethical problems it seems from a practical standpoint a nightmare to implement fairly.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 20, 2019)

@regnad 

Retired people could vote as long as the welfare they take in doesn't exceed their income taxes.
If you are disabled and unable to work, you most likely get welfare that exceeds the taxes you pay so no.

No, it would be based on per person. Example father works but the mother doesn't, the father can vote mother can't

I am quite aware such a system will never come into play in the current climate but a man can dream.

Basically, I am tieing the vote to some kind of responsibility. If you aren't a NET taxpayer then why the hell should you be able to decide what the money is spent on?

This would also help cut down on corporate welfare. We all bitch how the rich get a fuck ton of their money back and in some cases pay no taxes. Well, this system will help lower that since if they do get more welfare they would lose their voting power.


----------



## regnad (Mar 20, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> @regnad
> 
> Retired people could vote as long as the welfare they take in doesn't exceed their income taxes.
> If you are disabled and unable to work, you most likely get welfare that exceeds the taxes you pay so no.
> ...



Corporations don’t vote, but they are the ones receiving the tax breaks.

The monetary power they wield far far exceeds the handful of votes from their executives.

You’re basically writing off poor retired people who paid taxes all their lives but now are dependent on SS because they worked shit pay but necessary jobs their whole lives.

I’m not sure what results you want from this scheme, but I guarantee it won’t turn out how you’re imagining it.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If we abolish the Electoral College then only a few big counties with high population density (like in California, New York, and Washington) votes will matter and 95% of the counties votes won’t matter. There are higher concentration of people in urban areas. Rural areas will get screwed over. But we have many things prouduced in Rural areas one of them being food. People in Urban will only pass policies that only benefits people’s in cities and it will negatively affect food producers that the country relies on. Our founding fathers knew this which is why they created the electoral college.


Exactly.

Imagine this. A plague sweeps across American farmland, killing every avocado plant in sight. In a desperate plea, the farmers turn to the government for help. The government, voted in by the cities, doesn't gives a rat's ass about agriculture problems and abandons the farmers, leaving their crops to get wiped out. America runs out of avocados and a large number of the country's problems starve to death.


----------



## notimp (Mar 20, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Imagine this. A plague sweeps across American farmland, killing every avocado plant in sight. In a desperate plea, the farmers turn to the government for help. The government, voted in by the cities, doesn't gives a rat's ass about agriculture problems and abandons the farmers, leaving their crops to get wiped out. America runs out of avocados and a large number of the country's problems starve to death.


Imagine people in cities showing humanity and charity for their fellow citizens in that case. Imagine them already subsidizing rural life with tax dollars every day, without even saying a thing. Never crossed your mind hasnt it?

But in terms of the argument - yes, its a weighing layer on top of a direct democratic vote. No one else in the free world has it (not that I can think of), when voting for the presidency - but then in general, on other levels those things exist.

Usually never ever to be reevaluated... 

Next argument, why jerrymandering is needed for the same reasons? 
Complicated electoral design is beautiful?


----------



## SG854 (Mar 20, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> There are things I would sooner get rid of with regards to primaries (and variations thereof), systems that all buy assure two parties, a lot of the districts and ways they are assigned, define a better vote split method in said college (various states float between proportional and winner take all and the inconsistency bothers).
> 
> As far as the college itself then does it do the job? If you do want to boost the effective power of less dense populations/states does it serve to do that? How would one measure that? Does it matter in the face of boring two party setups? Do you really want to boost apparent power? Do we have any examples of things failing when power is not boosted? By how much should we boost things?
> 
> ...


Good points. If you can come up with good reasons that it doesn’t do its job like it’s suppose to and if we can come up with a better system then I’m all ears. So far it’s looks like a good system, as long as we can get corruption out of it.

Ya, campain promises are always hot air. Usually say things that gets votes.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Snugglevixen said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Imagine this. A plague sweeps across American farmland, killing every avocado plant in sight. In a desperate plea, the farmers turn to the government for help. The government, voted in by the cities, doesn't gives a rat's ass about agriculture problems and abandons the farmers, leaving their crops to get wiped out. America runs out of avocados and a large number of the country's problems starve to death.


Ya, the problem is the abolishment of electoral college mostly because they want their political party to win elections, but they don’t think of the ramifications as a whole on how it’ll affect smaller less represented counties. It’s tunnel vision to want to win elections but not looking at the whole picture.


----------



## notimp (Mar 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Good points. If you can come up with good reasons that it doesn’t do its job like it’s suppose to and if we can come up with a better system then I’m all ears.


Heres a good point as well.

People will have all kinds of different opinions as to what it is actually for (especially over time). People will lie, when they say what its for. People will lobby when they say what its for. People will cut deals, when arguing about a replacement system, people will whip others in place with threats and promises over the same matter.

Its called politics. You should look it up some time.. 

Usually people refer others to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister in terms of a good pop cultural representation. 

Thats after you reached stage one of "model UN, everyone is talking to everyone on a best argument basis" doesnt work. 

Maybe the weighing was put in there for "the plumb harvest of 1897", maybe it was put in there for rural vs urban (but the presidency does little in terms of those matters), maybe the presumed reasons shifted over time.

What political capital would be needed to "do it over". The sort of which does hardly exist anymore in our days. I think it would make universal healthcare feel like a pinprick in comparison. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Counter argument for "only the bigger states would matter": "only the swing states matter now". 

And campaigning them with "candy for all" is more easy. 

Not sure if I'm correct in principal, just gathering arguments for the other position.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If we abolish the Electoral College then only a few big counties with high population density (like in California, New York, and Washington) votes will matter and 95% of the counties votes won’t matter. There are higher concentration of people in urban areas. Rural areas will get screwed over. But we have many things prouduced in Rural areas one of them being food. People in Urban will only pass policies that only benefits people’s in cities and it will negatively affect food producers that the country relies on. Our founding fathers knew this which is why they created the electoral college.



So, uh, yea, no.  The President != government.  Rural states represent a decided majority in the Senate and hence have de facto veto power to just about anything more populace States in the House desire.  They can, if so desired, demand the House push through legislation they desire or vote down everything--not unlike Trump's shutdown efforts.  Congress as a whole can veto the President.  Congress has consistently shown itself beholden to agricultural, subsidizing it and generally looking the other way when it comes to agricultural pollution.  Hell, there was a massive debate in California during their long drought precisely about the fact that so much water was being diverted to water almond trees.  Beyond that, urbanities simply aren't inclined to bite the hand that feeds them.  Tying into my point about Trump's shutdown efforts, people actually want agricultural subsidies a lot more than they want a wall.  Basically, everything you're arguing on this front is decidedly wrong.

Having said all that, the reason I think we should keep the electoral college has less to do with per se better representing less populace states and more to somewhat mellow out the potential mob rush towards an incompetent President which has sufficient amounts of charisma.  To that end, the real problem I see today with the electoral system we have for President is precisely that we have a binary system in most States where all votes of a State go to one candidate.  To further mellow out the mob rush of the people, it'd make more sense to have proportional (as best as possible) electoral voting for States.  This also would help counter the "red state == blue votes are pointless [for president]" and "blue state == red votes are pointless [for president]".  The approach we have now is akin to State-level gerrymandering almost--and gerrymandering itself is a mess of a thing.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 20, 2019)

Interesting topic. I've been thinking of starting a thread that slightly had this as topic (it was more on whether there should be more political parties), but in the end I wasn't satisfied with it so I haven't made it.

Anyhow...I personally would say "just get rid of it", but I voted 'I don't know'. The reason: I'm not a US citizen. I know a bit on the topic, but it doesn't personally concern me. Likewise: the voting process in Belgium is quite a mess, but as soon as a foreigner would say something like "wow...that election process is quite a mess", I'd be up in arms on it*. So while I'll go into details as to why I would argue against it, please remember that I take it pretty light. It's kind of like with soccer. I personally think the offside-rule is stupid, but ey...if it makes you happy to have it: go on ahead. 


*kind of similar to when Trump called Brussels a hellhole. The response from me and my friends was mostly in the style of "IT MAY BE TRUE BUT NOBODY INSULTS OUR HELLHOLE BUT US!!!! "




SG854 said:


> It mostly comes up when people are discussing that Trump should’ve lost because Hillary won the popular vote. It’s something that always makes me laugh because the popular vote part always comes up everytime and because they want to get rid of the electoral college because their side lost the election.


I may be wrong, but wasn't this proposed to get rid of under Obama's government as well (but rejected by republicans)? 



SG854 said:


> So getting rid of the electoral college is a crazy idea, and hopefully people learned in school why the electoral college is important for representation of smaller groups. Imagine that whites being the majority voted for stuff that benefits only them and blacks being the minority are outnumber and gets nothing passed to benefit them. That’s what electoral colleges are.


Sorry...I didn't learn it in school (again: not US citizen). From what I picked up, this originated back in the day when USA was still fairly new and had to find a way to make sure everyone could vote without having to mass emigrate all over the place.
I'm not sure I understand the idea behind these electoral colleges (in this day and age, that is). My first conclusion upon following a US election was that if you lived in a non-swing state, your political opinion meant jack shit. The term "first-past-the-post" is far more prone allowing discrimination than anything else, but it's not like you can fix it with just two candidates.



SG854 said:


> If we abolish the Electoral College then only a few big counties with high population density (like in California, New York, and Washington) votes will matter and 95% of the counties votes won’t matter. There are higher concentration of people in urban areas. Rural areas will get screwed over. But we have many things prouduced in Rural areas one of them being food. People in Urban will only pass policies that only benefits people’s in cities and it will negatively affect food producers that the country relies on. Our founding fathers knew this which is why they created the electoral college.


Is that 95% figure accurate? I'm not joking here: if 95% of the US citizens live in the large urban areas, then I don't even need to check a map of the weight of those colleges to know cities are vastly underrepresented in the US.
I can't say anything on why those colleges were created (okay...so maybe "it was more convenient before communication improved came along" was a wrong assumption on my part), but I honestly don't see a connection with your conclusion. Why would rural areas get screwed when the president with the most citizen votes would win the election? In case you forgot: Al Gore (who lost despite a popular vote from George W. Bush in 2000) was an environmentalist. And last I checked, humans living in cities know that they rely on food production (which happens mostly in the countryside).



SG854 said:


> A good anology i’ve seen online is imagine a World Series Baseball match and one team wins one game 16-2. The other team wins 4 games 1-0. One team has the most total points but lost most games. The electoral college makes it so the team that wins the most matches are champions and not the team that scores the most points in one game.


Oh...is that so? I thought that most candidates downright ignored states because their electoral weight (or the chance to claim a victory) was too small to make an income on the outcome. I guess I was wrong on that. Thanks for the correction. 

But on a serious note: there are things very wrong with the comparion. The main one: it isn't the best team that wins, but the best team *that can compete* that wins. And seeing how much presidential elections cost, the comparison with world baseball would be correct if three major rules would be enforced in that sport:
* every baseball team needs not only visit every state but also build a new stadion. In theory, sponsors can contribute to these teams without asking anything in return. In practice, sponsors can contribute to these teams asking all sorts of stuff in return.
* there should only ever be two teams competing. Sure, the teams start out with little subdivisions, but in the end you can only ever root for one of these teams
* actually scoring points is...erm...I guess it's still somewhat relevant somehow, but even so it would be vastly underprioritized to the perception to which team scores. There might be a referee on the field, but the media is pretty inventive in ways to undermine his verdict.

If you think that baseball would still be the same with those three rules in place...then sure: the candidate that scores the _most _victory points as opposed to the _largest _victory points wins.




SG854 said:


> Getting rid of electoral college will mean smaller counties will give up their power and them voting for things that will help their very specific communities living style.


Okay...color me interested. Why would they vote different? Again: the way I see it, these states give up their COLLECTIVE power to gain INDIVIDUAL power. Both those republicans AND democrats who live in non-battle states will actually have a chance of making an actual impact on the election. All this "your vote really matters" that gets thrown around each election (except in Belgium, where voting is obligated  ) might actually ring true.



SG854 said:


> Hillary won the popular vote mostly due to California and if you got rid of California then she would’ve lost the popular vote.


Okay...and your point is? It's not hard to predict that if you exclude enough voters then at some point the opposition would win.



SG854 said:


> But Trump won the most electoral votes. Therefore was a valid win. And only a few times in history someone that won the popular vote lost the electoral vote. So getting rid of electoral college because of a few instances isnt a good idea and will back fire. Abraham Lincoln was one president that was hated with lower approval ratings then Trump, but became popular after he died.


I have honestly no idea how many times it has been the case, but I wouldn't call these "a few instances". Democracy means "rule by the people". This means that each of these "few instances" are four year periods where the very principle of democracy simply were not applied. And I know this is pretty controversial, but I think that those hardcore fore fathers that kickstarted the USA actually meant their brand new democracy to be actually democratic, and that the electoral colleges were at that time the best way to do it because the internet hadn't been invented yet.

I'm pretty sure that others know more about Lincoln than me, but I'm fairly sure that he believed in something bigger than himself. That obviously wields enemies. Trump doesn't believe in anything aside his brand name. So I'm fairly confident he won't become much more popular after he dies.


----------



## Flame (Mar 20, 2019)

you really have two parties _right_?

who ever gets the most votes wins.

last time the person with the second most vote won.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2019)

If we aren't going to eliminate it, we definitely need to update it.  The number of EC votes per state has not stayed consistent with population at all.  This nation was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation, and a fair amount of the American populace has no representation in the electoral college.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 20, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Oh...is that so? I thought that most candidates downright ignored states because their electoral weight (or the chance to claim a victory) was too small to make an income on the outcome. I guess I was wrong on that. Thanks for the correction.


Yes, 90% of electioneering takes place in 11 swing states. But swing states change. They mostly ignore non swing states which they know will vote for their side. Swing states change based on industry and changing times. Like loosing manufacturing jobs to robots. These places voted for Trump because he said he will bring jobs back. You would have people only campaign of the ideals of the big cities with individual vote system and rural areas would be left out.

If we abolish the electoral college then then they only need to focus on big counties in California, New York, Texas ignoring the rest of the country. It undermines the principles of federalism which will remove powers from individual states and they will have to give up their power to larger states like California and New York. They will have imperial rule over most states. Most of the states in country is going to be ignored. People in California will dictate what you can and can’t do if you live in the middle of a rural nowhere.

People have vowed to get rid of the electoral college when they become president but that’s not going to happen because you need 2/3 of states to vote in favor of it and many states want the electoral college.

No, your right that a big reason for the creation of the electoral college was because communication because all people had were horses. The founding fathers knew that if you want other states to be part of the union they can’t be out voted by the popular vote.

Trump won the overall majority of counties in this country. Hillary won the popular vote. Electoral college is about state representation not individual person representation. The president doesn’t represent individuals, they represent the union. If you have individual problems then talk to your state government. The national government isn’t the only thing that exists.

Many states mostly Blue States have vowed to vote their electorates based on popular vote. And this will back fire bad.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/color...idents-by-popular-vote-skip-electoral-college

Now with the current system if most people in the state want a Democrat then then can vote for a Democrat. But then let say they go by individual national popular vote and a Republican gets the national popular vote, well now they have to vote their electorates for the Republican, going against what their state wants. They would have to explain to their state why they are going against the wishes of the people in that state. And Republicans can see this as an advantage to benefit them.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 20, 2019)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Thankfully we don't need a constitutional amendment. We just need 270 EV to sign this compact.

We are already over half way there.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 20, 2019)

x65943 said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
> 
> Thankfully we don't need a constitutional amendment. We just need 270 EV to sign this compact.
> 
> We are already over half way there.


Why do you think we should get rid of electoral colleges?


----------



## x65943 (Mar 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Why do you think we should get rid of electoral colleges?


The entire original idea was that the population couldn't be trusted to make their own decision.

So these guys would be more informed and make sure a totally underqualified or malevolent figure could not seize the office of the president.

Never once in history have they gone against their state's decision to the extent that they actually change who wins.

For this reason it is just a clunky system that is not capable of its intended purpose.

What it has turned into is a system that awards all the votes of a state to one candidate, even if they did not vote for him.

For example, in Kentucky if 49% of all voters vote Clinton, and 51% vote Trump - then Trump gets 100% of electoral votes. Does that make sense? Why is my vote transferred to someone I didn't vote for?

That is my main gripe with the system. I say a vote should go towards the person who it was intended for - not someone else because he managed to secure like 300 more votes - and so is for some reason entitled to millions that didn't vote for him.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 20, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The entire original idea was that the population couldn't be trusted to make their own decision.
> 
> So these guys would be more informed and make sure a totally underqualified or malevolent figure could not seize the office of the president.
> 
> ...


Is Kentucky a winner take all state? Some states I know aren’t like that.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Is Kentucky a winner take all state? Some states I know aren’t like that.


Maine and Nebraska are the only states that are not.

For the other 48 states and DC your vote is transferred to someone you did not vote for.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 20, 2019)

@SG854: I like your reply to my post, but while it certainly shows your fear of the power of the votes shifting towards other states, it also indicates that you are aware that there already is a certain amount of power play going on. Do you really think that the urban states will prey on the more rural states because the president will be mostly picked by the cities?



SG854 said:


> Why do you think we should get rid of electoral colleges?



If you'll allow me a similar answer: because I think they are at best a (nowadays) unneeded extra (as pointed out by @x65943 : despite their name, these colleges will back a chimp if said chimp gets the most votes in their state), and at worst are a system that allows for a president representing a minority of the people.

Recent history isn't making good commercial for the colleges. W. Bush is a war criminal and Donald Trump is racking up criminal activities faster than...erm...anyone, really.

To elaborate a bit: 9/11 would most likely have happened under Al Gore as well. And retaliation would've followed as well. But I recall pretty well that before 2001 ended, there were all these strange rumors about Iraq, despite nothing indicating that they were involved in the act to begin with. A few years later, it was "absolutely certain" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite them not having it...at all. But because USA was attempting to fight two wars rather than one, it resulted in a mess that still continues to this day.
As for the latter: Hillary Clinton just got slandered. There are still people somehow believing the lie that she'd be a bad president (or even more hilarious: that things'd be EVEN WORSE under her), but aside from some conspiracy theorists, everyone knows that she'd be a good president. Perhaps not great, and I honestly don't think she'd be a stellar one...but leaving personal drama aside, Trump is still flat out worse than when you would've decided to just leave the presidential seat empty.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 20, 2019)

x65943 said:


> That is my main gripe with the system. I say a vote should go towards the person who it was intended for - not someone else because he managed to secure like 300 more votes - and so is for some reason entitled to millions that didn't vote for him.



Precisely this.  California is a "blue state" but still had 31% of people voting for Trump; if based on proportional representation, that would have meant 17 (31% of 55) electorate votes for Trump.  Mississippi is a "red state" but still had 40% of people voting for Clinton; if based on proportional representation, that would have meant 2 (~40% of 6) electorate votes for Clinton.  Add up several States in the interior and that'll add up to 17.  The supposed sharp split of red vs blue is the oversimplied byproduct of treating electoral college results as enacted by States (by their own choice) as *the* standard of a whole State while grossly ignoring how large percentages of the population (1) doesn't vote in line with their State on their supposed red/blue color and (2) their House/Senate seats are often a mixture of red/blue (whether this is partially gerrymandering or the varying will of the people).

PS - And just to add on how to actually structure this?  That's easy:  you get two electorate votes, one for your house and one for your senate district.  Hence, one is closer to a democratic vote and one is more of a per-(half)state vote.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 20, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Why is my vote transferred to someone I didn't vote for?



Because in the Presidential election you're not voting directly for a candidate. You're voting for who you want your elector to vote.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 20, 2019)

It might better than nothing, but it's a flawed system. I think it should be changed or replaced with something better, although I have no idea what that would be.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2019)

A good video that summarizes most of my feelings on the topic:


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 20, 2019)

The Real Jdbye said:


> It's better than nothing


Given "nothing" would presumably be the "add them up, most votes wins" (which itself is not a great system but different discussion there) then that is surely a contentious statement.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 20, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Given "nothing" would presumably be the "add them up, most votes wins" (which itself is not a great system but different discussion there) then that is surely a contentious statement.


True. Edited my post.


----------



## granville (Mar 21, 2019)

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?lang=en

^That one is still on his Twitter. These were deleted however-


----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2019)

Lots of good arguments for why we should get rid of the electoral college, not seeing many good arguments for keeping it.  Yes, if we get rid of it, politicians will have to focus on the states with the highest populations, but that's exactly how the EC was meant to work anyway.  "Tyranny of the majority" is just another phrase for Democracy.  Letting "tyranny of the minority" continue to rule is how we quickly transition to a Banana Republic.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Lots of good arguments for why we should get rid of the electoral college, not seeing many good arguments for keeping it.  Yes, if we get rid of it, politicians will have to focus on the states with the highest populations, but that's exactly how the EC was meant to work anyway.  "Tyranny of the majority" is just another phrase for Democracy.  Letting "tyranny of the minority" continue to rule is how we quickly transition to a Banana Republic.


Not to mention the president only cares about swing states during the election

Changing the system would not change executive policy one iota - all it would change is the campaign trail


----------



## SG854 (Mar 21, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Not to mention the president only cares about swing states during the election
> 
> Changing the system would not change executive policy one iota - all it would change is the campaign trail


You can flip non swing states, Bush won because he flipped a state people thought was safe Democrat.

Safe and Swing states are always constantly changing. You can’t ignore non swing states for too long or else you’ll suffer for it.

California use to be a safe red state as far back as 1988 and Texas use to be a safe blue state for a long time. The link @kuwanger gave shows how many times California changed from a red to a blue state. There were also states that use to be non swing states but not anymore like Virginia and New Hamshire. It’s always changing and you can’t predict where it’s going, so you have to campaign around the country depending on current situation.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> You can flip non swing states, Bush won because he flipped a state people thought was safe Democrat.
> 
> Safe and Swing states are always constantly changing. You can’t ignore non swing states for too long or else you’ll suffer for it.
> 
> California use to be a safe red state as far back as 1988 and Texas use to be a safe blue state for a long time. The link @kuwanger gave shows how many times California changed from a red to a blue state. There were also states that use to be non swing states but not anymore like Virginia and New Hamshire. It’s always changing and you can’t predict where it’s going, so you have to campaign around the country depending on current situation.


You misunderstood the point of my post

I meant even states that are strategically important during an election receive no special treatment afterwards

Basically my point was, although Ohio is very important during an election - it becomes just another fly over state quickly after November


----------



## dAVID_ (Mar 23, 2019)

The main reason why I'd want to eliminate the electoral college is because it can give your vote to a candidate, even if you didn't vote for him.
So in reality you're not voting for a president, you're voting for a representative to vote for you.


----------



## notimp (Mar 23, 2019)

x65943 said:


> For this reason it is just a clunky system that is not capable of its intended purpose.


Are you sure... 

Because here is the thing. For every system, there is someone who thinks about how they work, and how you can profit from them (or negatively coined - how to exploit them).

So, if a point is reached, where everyone has arranged themselves with a broken system - either because they dont care (poor people), or because they profit from it (people who cut in on the margins), but no one really is encouraged to speak out against it (academia?, ngos, ...), because you've made it a 'national myth' by now - this strikes me as

intelligent design. 

And thats a more productive angle of asking yourself "cui bono". Not to stop at people, or brands, but to actually look at relationships, and what they produce.

Also - you used split logic in your other argument. "it was implemented, because people didn't trust total democracy" but at the same time "it never had any real effect". So the people implementing it in the first place didn't understand designing a voting system, even though they designed one - and threw in a weighing layer and massive overhead, because it has no effect? 

edit: In reference to the poor people reference.  Thats the 'they dont care who exploits them' argument, they've just learned, that someone always does ('some things never change').

edit: One more thing. If you go back into the history of the american voting system - you'll see that votes were essentially bought for centuries. See: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/13/rock-paper-scissors


----------



## notimp (Mar 23, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> The main reason why I'd want to eliminate the electoral college is because it can give your vote to a candidate, even if you didn't vote for him.
> So in reality you're not voting for a president, you're voting for a representative to vote for you.


Not completely correct in practice. You vote for a representative, who gets told by a political party who to vote for.

The issue is not the representative. Because they essentially always vote for party lines. (Look it up, the instances, where they didn't are so few, afair you can count them on your hands and toes..  ).

The 'issue'(/intended weighing) is the weighted distribution of electoral delegates (How many a state has.).

Now, in the EU - for example, we have the same system. For the european parliament. So if you are a small state, you get actually (weighted) more delegates, that percentually you would have the rights to. That is done - so issues get amplified, because it is believed, that larger states, have other venues of "influence" that smaller ones dont.

That follows an internal logic.

The logic to have a delegate system to vote for "a person" escapes me though. (In that case its not about "producing arguments, and solutions" - but about "who do we elect?". If people can not be trusted with that decision... You are in america..  (But I don't know the actual reason, why it was implemented originally. History buffs around?)


----------



## x65943 (Mar 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Not completely correct in practice. You vote for a representative, who gets told by a political party who to vote for.
> 
> The issue is not the representative. Because they essentially always vote for party lines. (Look it up, the instances, where they didn't are so few, afair you can count them on your hands and toes..  ).
> 
> The 'issue'(/intended weighing) is the weighted distribution of electoral delegates (How many a state has.).


No the issue is the winner take all system that says all votes from a state go to one guy - despite the fact that potentially 49% voted for someone else.


----------



## notimp (Mar 23, 2019)

That would question the entire principal of majority rule and representative democracy.

AH - I think I've just arrived at the real answer using logic.

Essentially america never votes. 

In the entire rest of the world a president usually only has a "mediation role"  - and may have a few specific rights to protect the constituation of a country (usually veto rights), and might be the commander in chief of the military (usually for historic reasons).

But then the rest of the world actually goes and votes in/for parliamental elections. America apparently doesnt (well, not enough americans do..  ), and instead they believe in making a fuss about voting in  "a president" instead.

So your scope is misaligned. The guy, will always be just a guy, and usually shouldnt matter much (in the US he has some steering capability in terms of policy - but even that is limited). So there will always be a 49% wasn't enough issue. (In the end you are voting for just one guy/gal.)

But to have a real democracy, people would actually have to care about your midterm elections, which they dont. Because you have a people cult, with a two party system (four more years and change, both parties take turns ("now its me turn to rule" - convenient, isnt it?  )), instead of what the rest of the world would call a democracy.

Essentially. 

You never can have 49% of peoples believes in a presidents actions. Thats impossible. So what you proposed, isnt the issue.  (If you still want to have a vote for a precidency.)

edit: Someone correct this please:

In presidential election years, americans actually vote for parties instead? So they vote for their representatives in congress in one swoop, when they go to "vote for president", or not? Essentially, America has no direct democratic vote for the presidency. But is congress elected only in mid terms or also in presidential election years?

(In presidential election years voter turnout is "high enough" for a democracy in the US.)


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

x65943 said:


> You misunderstood the point of my post
> 
> I meant even states that are strategically important during an election receive no special treatment afterwards
> 
> Basically my point was, although Ohio is very important during an election - it becomes just another fly over state quickly after November


Not a response to your answer but some interesting facts.

Democrats have their own Electoral College which is far worse, the Super Delagates. And they are the only ones that have this. They would have to abolish this to.

And Hilary won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries but lost to Obama. And thats twice she lost but won the popular vote.


----------



## b17bomber (Mar 23, 2019)

So if we get rid of the electoral college, the people that brought you this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=b53uiRFq4Ds

Will be in power forever. I think this is a must watch.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Lacius said:


> A good video that summarizes most of my feelings on the topic:



My Video to Your Video



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



b17bomber said:


> So if we get rid of the electoral college, the people that brought you this
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=b53uiRFq4Ds
> 
> Will be in power forever. I think this is a must watch.


Some good journalism. Crime is usually higher in bigger cities. And a bunch of people are blaming leftist policies on Seattle’s situation.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 23, 2019)

b17bomber said:


> So if we get rid of the electoral college, the people that brought you this
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=b53uiRFq4Ds
> 
> Will be in power forever. I think this is a must watch.



You and every other rightie deplorable can just go away with your same old, same old blame game, propaganda nonsense. It's absurdly stupid. Please do explain why every other Democrat run city or state is not in the same shape. Regardless, try not to act as if the division and hatred across our nation brought on by pathological liar, MAGA dotard, man-child has done great things for the USA. Worst administration in history. Anyone that backs that loser is every bit as much a dotard as Trump himself. And no, I did not vote for Hillary OR Obama.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 23, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You and every other rightie deplorable can just go away with your same old, same old blame game, propaganda nonsense. It's absurdly stupid. *Please do explain why every other Democrat run city or state is not in the same shape.* Regardless, try not to act as if the division and hatred across our nation brought on by pathological liar, MAGA dotard, man-child has done great things for the USA. Worst administration in history. Anyone that backs that loser is every bit as much a dotard as Trump himself. And no, I did not vote for Hillary OR Obama.



Are you for real??? Been to San Fran lately? Did you install the poop map app on your phone to avoid the piles? How about Detroit, Philly, Baltimore, Cleveland, Newark, St. Louis??


----------



## morvoran (Mar 23, 2019)

No, we should not get rid of the electoral college.  

The founding fathers implemented it as a safe guard to protect the foundation of the USA, prevent people from stealing elections, and to make sure that a single state can't decide the fate of the entire country (such as California).  

The only people who want to do away with the EC are democrat politicians who only want more power and the leftist puppets with wool over their eyes whose strings are being pulled by their puppet masters/democrat leaders.

If the EC is abolished, the USA will go to hell in a handbasket and might as well start considering ourselves a 3rd world country. 

If you want rampant poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and mass starvation, then go ahead and vote to get rid of it.  I would wish for you to suffer and die, but you are already on your way.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Are you for real??? Been to San Fran lately? Did you install the poop map app on your phone to avoid the piles? How about Detroit, Philly, Baltimore, Cleveland, Newark, St. Louis??



Are you for real? You just named a whopping 7 cities out of how many? There are PLENTY of other reasons as to why those cities are the way they are. But you choose obvious selective reasoning to promote your fake news. Not going to hold your hand as it's all extremely obvious, but I know it's difficult for you to get past Fox. Perhaps someone else will be willing to walk you across the street and search for clues with you.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, we should not get rid of the electoral college.
> 
> The founding fathers implemented it as a safe guard to protect the foundation of the USA, prevent people from stealing elections, and to make sure that a single state can't decide the fate of the entire country (such as California).
> 
> ...


California is a huge state, and they have a ton of EVs.

About 1/4 of the state's citizens vote Republican every presidential election. 

How many EVs do the Rs get from that? Zero.

This is the issue with the electoral college. 1/4 of Californian votes are taken and given to someone else.

Getting rid of the system would motivate people to vote in states seen as "safe"

Why is voter turnout so low in states that are "safely republican"? It's because the voters know no matter what they vote for - all the EVs will go R.

If we get rid of the EC more Republican voters will vote in states like Alabama, Kentucky, Indiana etc. And thus Republicans will get more votes from their states. 

It's not clear that any party would be at a disadvantage if we got rid of the current system - which robs your vote from who you voted for - and gives it to a candidate which you didn't vote for.

In fact there are Republican strategists who think getting rid of the system would be good - as they believe most Americans are center right.

Is it true that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016? Yes. If the popular vote was what mattered - would she have still won? No.

People would have voted differently if the popular vote mattered. People in Alabama etc would have gotten out to vote in higher numbers. 

The reason Democrats keep winning the popular vote is not because they have more support - it's because there are so many "safe republican" states where voter turnout is low - because they know their guy is gonna win all the EVs no matter if they go to the polls or not.


----------



## qqq1 (Mar 23, 2019)

I'm just jumping in here. When I didn't actually know why the electoral college existed or how it worked the idea sounded bad to me. Certainly in this day and age we can accurately count each and every vote so the people's exact votes should determine the outcome. Made sense to me. Then I learned about how not just a few states but literally 2 or 3 cities would control the entire country. That's just not going to work in the USA. The wants and needs of a single place like NY NY would ruin the majority rural area of the USA. I'll certainly agree that the EC system might need some reworking and updating but I no longer think a nation wide popular vote would work. In a smaller country where the things are mostly the same throughout it could be great but in a widely diverse place like the USA it can't work. This is also why states need to have a lot of their own control. We're too big for one set of rules to work everywhere.


----------



## Viri (Mar 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Are you for real??? Been to San Fran lately? Did you install the poop map app on your phone to avoid the piles? How about Detroit, Philly, Baltimore, Cleveland, Newark, St. Louis??


Yuh, I live in one of those cities listed. I wouldn't recommend you visit here.


----------



## x65943 (Mar 23, 2019)

qqq1 said:


> I'm just jumping in here. When I didn't actually know why the electoral collage existed or how it worked the idea sounded bad to me. Certainly in this day and age we can accurately count each and every vote so the people's exact votes should determine the outcome. Made sense to me. Then I learned about how not just a few states but literally 2 or 3 cities would control the entire country. That's just not going to work in the USA. The wants and needs of a single place like NY NY would ruin the majority rural area of the USA. I'll certainly agree that the EC system might need some reworking and updating but I no longer think a nation wide popular vote would work. In a smaller country where the things are mostly the same throughout it could be great but in a widely diverse place like the USA it can't work. This is also why states need to have a lot of their own control. We're too big for one set of rules to work everywhere.


Do you agree at least that we should get rid of the winner take all system, and award EVs by congressional district?

This way the wants of a particular part of a state (northern California, largely Republican) would not be ignored?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> My Video to Your Video



The guy in the video you posted doesn't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't address many of the points in the Adam Ruins Everything video. For example, right at the top, he says swing states change, but that's irrelevant to the point about swing states.


----------



## GhostLatte (Mar 23, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The guy in the video you posted doesn't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't address many of the points in the Adam Ruins Everything video. For example, right at the top, he says swing states change, but that's irrelevant to the point about swing states.


Any sane person would know that Crowder is incredibly biased.


----------



## qqq1 (Mar 23, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Do you agree at least that we should get rid of the winner take all system, and award EVs by congressional district?
> 
> This way the wants of a particular part of a state (northern California, largely Republican) would not be ignored?



Yes, that is exactly the kind of thing that should be reworked in the EC system. We have the same thing in Michigan nearly every election cycle. I'm watching the district map and nearly every county is red. Detroit votes come in, Michigan is voting blue. It sucks.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You and every other rightie deplorable can just go away with your same old, same old blame game, propaganda nonsense. It's absurdly stupid. Please do explain why every other Democrat run city or state is not in the same shape. Regardless, try not to act as if the division and hatred across our nation brought on by pathological liar, MAGA dotard, man-child has done great things for the USA. Worst administration in history. Anyone that backs that loser is every bit as much a dotard as Trump himself. And no, I did not vote for Hillary OR Obama.


That’s not an argument. Provide detail on why you disagree. No one will take you seriously if you just throw out words like maga dotard, righty deprlorable.... that’s not a counter point. If you have good points then people will listen. I personally like economist Thomas Sowell and I find his arguments to be well presented.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GhostLatte said:


> Any sane person would know that Crowder is incredibly biased.


I personally like some of his stuff. Sometimes he’s wrong, sometimes he’s right.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 23, 2019)

For anyone who doesn't have the time to read, I watched this a few years ago:


I have a complete different view, but having knowledge on both sides is important.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

To present an argument for the other side. Here’s a rebuttal to Steven Crowder


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> butt



....there are like, three videos smashed into one...and those videos are videos already posted in this thread.

....we've become the equivalent of posting reaction vids of reaction vids of cats reacting to reaction vids.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> ....there are like three videos smashed into one...and those videos are videos already posted in this thread.
> 
> ....we've become the equivalent of posting reaction vids of reaction vids of cats reacting to reaction vids.


Want another one?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

Again, I'd be fine with keeping the electoral college if it means we update the number of EC votes that each state gets based on population.  This is the way it was always meant to work, and the only reason the electoral college is broken now is because we haven't updated it since the founding of the country.  When it's working as intended, it's basically the same as using popular vote.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again, I'd be fine with keeping the electoral college if it means we update the number of EC votes that each state gets based on population.  This is the way it was always meant to work, and the only reason the electoral college is broken now is because we haven't updated it since the founding of the country.  When it's working as intended, it's basically the same as using popular vote.


Ya I agree it need to be refined if we keep it. But we do need paper ballots to stop voter fruad


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> ne



....I mean, it's your thread.

My views aren't represented and I feel like I won't conform to saying the current EC is great and I won't conform to say the current EC needs to be abolished, no matter the video.

No, I don't feel like going in-depth, explaining every detail on where I stand and it's mainly because I don't want some asshole claiming, "This is my idea I never stole from the internuts and I'm the only one who thought of it!11!1"....plus, I finished Time Stalkers.....I'm crying for my own suffering.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Ya I agree it need to be refined if we keep it. But we do need paper ballots to stop voter fruad


Paper backups should always be mandatory, but voter fraud isn't a big concern in this country.  Election fraud was a much bigger problem last year for states like North Carolina.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> ....I mean, it's your thread.
> 
> My views aren't represented and I feel like I won't conform to saying the current EC is great and I won't conform to say the current EC needs to be abolished, no matter the video.
> 
> No, I don't feel like going in-depth, explaining every detail on where I stand and it's mainly because I don't want some asshole claiming, "This is my idea I never stole from the internuts and I'm the only one who thought of it!11!1"....plus, I finished Time Stalkers.....I'm crying for my own suffering.


So to summarize what your saying 

"This is my idea I never stole from the internuts and I'm the only one who thought of it!11!1"....plus, I finished Time Stalkers.....I'm crying for my own suffering.“


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> at your say



...that's not how summary works. (insert mafia.jpeg)


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> ...that's not how summary works. (insert mafia.jpeg)


Nah, that’s how it works perfectly


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Nah


See above.......directly above, that is your answer.

Literally, you are derailing your own thread.


----------



## BeniBel (Mar 25, 2019)

I'm not American, but do know a bit about the US political system.

First of all I wanted to comment on the fact Trump lost the so called popular vote. While this might be true, it doesn't really say much. Trump based his campaign on the current election system, and did little to none campaign in some districts. For example in the District of Columbia, Clinton won with 90.48% of the votes, which alone gave her 260.000 votes over Trump. So the popular vote doesn't say too much.

As for the electoral system, we must ask ourself why it was put into place in the first place? Simple answer is, to take a bit of power away by the people. The founding father feared people could be manipulated into electing a tyrant into place, and thus they created a safety buffer for this in the form of the electoral college system.

I do think this should be kept into place, people should be protected against themself. In these days, where media biased and fake news are an ongoing issue, it's hard for a lot of people make a rational decision. Tons of people see Trump as someone bad, but how many people can actually give valid arguments as of exactly why? Did he have some childish tweets? Sure he did, can't deny that, but does it make him a bad president? Those tweets for example opened up the door for negotiations with North Korea. Did he say against someone he would like to grab a womens pussy? Sure, but what guy never made such a remark when in private? The GDP under Trump is sky high. No wars have been broken out so far, he gives his wage to charity, and a lot of other things. Yet, most of this does not reach the news, instead, we had to read for 2 years how he will be impeached and how Russia did all sorts of things wrong, without even the slightest piece of evidence. Because that's key, evidence. Noone is guilty of anything, unless proven guilt behing reasonable doubt.

What the democrats should be doing now, is focussing on themself. Ask themself why they lost the elections, instead of trying to find a scapegoat. And most of all, find unity within their own party, as well as with the others. Sabotaging others will help noone in the end.


----------

