Should We Get Rid of the Electoral College?

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.

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.

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

Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png

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.)

Should We Get Rid of the Electoral College?

Should we get rid of Electoral College?

Yes

No

I don’t know

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Hail Mary

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Storywriter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

*is birb*

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

*is birb*

GBAtemp Goat

Time to fly, 621

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Hail Mary

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum

is birb

is birb