Is electoral college anti-democracy?

[Flame]

To me, it seems It's not about who has the most votes. So who cares about the will of the people. It's all about swing states.

Any other things I'm missing?

 

[lolcatzuru]

To me, it seems It's not about who has the most votes. So who cares about the will of the people. It's all about swing states.

Any other things I'm missing?

well id say key concept really, as a fun fact, the electoral college was created by i assume donald trump in a past life, as it was created to avoid a situation where you pack people into major cities, and almost make them some kind of... safe city? theres a similar word to that and have them all vote hard radical blue, so to avoid exactly whats happening now, they made a safety net which is the electoral college, ironically, it is in fact the will of the people, that still determines a state, as the votes are still considered, but it was made with an anti xerox perspective, if you will. Lastly, its good that it is, democracy is a poison, this country was founded as a constitutional republic and it should stay that way. "democracy" was a cancerous idea from the start mostly driven by the same people who pushed for slavery, and the same people who complain about the electoral college now.

 

[titan_tim]

In extreme situations, it is anti-democratic. Let's say we have 99% of the population in California, and the rest of the 1% spread around the country. The 49 other states' 1% would control the 99% (I'm sure someone will say that's how it already is with the rich 1% controlling everyone, but that's a different topic).

The house kind of makes up for it by giving more representatives per state. Although the senate only has two per state.

The solutions are
1. To motivate people to move to other areas and spread the voters, unfortunately nobody wants to move to the middle of nowhere.
2. Upend the electoral system to rely on the popular vote, which will not happen in our lifetime, as it would be a death sentence for right wing people. The last time they won the popular vote was with Bush Jr, and that was just barely, and with the boost of everyone coming together after 9/11.

 

[Xzi]

Very much so. Land doesn't vote, so the system's only purpose in the modern day is to lend more power to billionaires whose spending and influence can get a particular state to 51% in favor of their preferred party/candidate. The other 49% of voters in that state have their voices disregarded and ignored.

Eliminating the electoral college would force all candidates to acknowledge issues that have popular consensus, an example being marijuana legalization. As things stand now, even if an issue has 75%+ bipartisan support among voters, one of the parties feels comfortable opposing it anyway, and the other doesn't feel the need to prioritize it.

"democracy" was a cancerous idea from the start mostly driven by the same people who pushed for slavery, and the same people who complain about the electoral college now.

LMAO, guy thinks the confederacy would've given black people the right to vote. Anything less would not truly be democracy.

 

[lolcatzuru]

In extreme situations, it is anti-democratic. Let's say we have 99% of the population in California, and the rest of the 1% spread around the country. The 49 other states' 1% would control the 99% (I'm sure someone will say that's how it already is with the rich 1% controlling everyone, but that's a different topic).

The house kind of makes up for it by giving more representatives per state. Although the senate only has two per state.

The solutions are
1. To motivate people to move to other areas and spread the voters, unfortunately nobody wants to move to the middle of nowhere.
2. Upend the electoral system to rely on the popular vote, which will not happen in our lifetime, as it would be a death sentence for right wing people. The last time they won the popular vote was with Bush Jr, and that was just barely, and with the boost of everyone coming together after 9/11.

this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.

 

[Xzi]

this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.

You think it's terrible because the Republican party would never win another federal election under a truly democratic system. The reality is that you'd have a party, or multiple parties, more willing to address your own needs rather than the needs of the ruling class exclusively. More choices, and better choices. Right now you're settling for less than the bare minimum without even realizing it.

 

[KingVamp]

this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.

So, King Biden then?

 

[titan_tim]

this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.

Great point! Very researched and well presented.

 

[iGifted]

To me, it seems It's not about who has the most votes. So who cares about the will of the people. It's all about swing states.

Any other things I'm missing?

I think these are the two main things that matter and why the Electoral College makes sense.

1. Balances Different Regions: The Electoral College makes sure that both big cities and small towns across the U.S. get attention in presidential elections, so no area is ignored.
2. Checks and Balances: It's part of the system to prevent any one group from having too much power in choosing the President, ensuring that even states with fewer people have a say; otherwise large population cities would always win and alienate people like Farmers, Urban voters, and people who live in states that are not so populous.

 

[Xzi]

Balances Different Regions: The Electoral College makes sure that both big cities and small towns across the U.S. get attention in presidential elections, so no area is ignored.

Except that's not true: blue cities in red states are largely ignored, and red towns in blue states are largely ignored. Without the electoral college, one person would have one vote, and it would always be counted equally toward the outcome regardless of how the majority in their state votes.

Checks and Balances: It's part of the system to prevent any one group from having too much power in choosing the President, ensuring that even states with fewer people have a say; otherwise large population cities would always win and alienate people like Farmers, Urban voters, and people who live in states that are not so populous.

The majority of votes would always win, regardless of where those votes came from. The group that currently has too much power in choosing the president makes up less than 1% of the population, and the electoral college makes it far easier/cheaper for them than it should be. It also locks us into the flawed two-party system perpetually.

 

[supermist]

Its illogical by modern standards. To an extent, I *get* how it was practical prior to the age of radio and etc. However, red states continue to be bailed out by blue states (because they take more than contribute) yet they have disproportionate voting power which resulted in Roe V Wade being overturned despite a majority of Americans supporting reproductive rights.

Source for red states being takers: https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/

So, we have to continue to bail them out and they get to decide how our country is run?

 

[Taleweaver]

Hmm... Anti democratic is a bit harsh. From what I gather (as a foreigner), it's just a remnant of a time when it was otherwise impossible to properly organize an election in a'country' as large as the US. without modern communication tools, I probably would resort to something like that as well. Thing is: were not living in those times anymore.

Otherwise said: it's a very outdated concept that should've been updated a few decades ago. Instead, it's now being perverted to diminish influence from large cities.


I wish I could leave it at that, but reality obliges me to be fair. See, there's some merit in giving extra merit to 'the land' over 'the people'. While democracy obviously means the will of the people, fact is that they're largely fed by crops grown on land in rural areas. Farmers and agricultural workers have an important responsibility, and that's not saying anything of nature. In democracies like ours, it's really the cities' opinion that is pushed through.
And you can see the consequences almost real time in Europe right now: the EU decides on regulations that farmers in large numbers strongly disagree with. Result: many of our highways are now blocked in protest over this (probably most today - February 1st - in Brussels, as there's a meeting about it).

But to circle back: in theory, this system could benefit the rural states more because they have a larger responsibility toward the more urban ones. In practice I don't see either candidate really push the actual advantages. Rather the contrary: Republicans sound almost comically evil in how they wonder how much more unpopular and unneeded legislation they can push and survive electoraly by limiting the means to vote.

 

[lolcatzuru]

You think it's terrible because the Republican party would never win another federal election under a truly democratic system. The reality is that you'd have a party, or multiple parties, more willing to address your own needs rather than the needs of the ruling class exclusively. More choices, and better choices. Right now you're settling for less than the bare minimum without even realizing it.

do you have a source on that? i hate the republican party, how would you even know, you arent from america.

Post automatically merged: Feb 1, 2024

So, King Biden then?

that is whats happening now, though i do feel the need to correct you " fake" king biden, i was gonna go with "installed" but thats too long.

Post automatically merged: Feb 1, 2024

Great point! Very researched and well presented.

thanks!, i figured someone would appreciate it.

 

[Xzi]

do you have a source on that?

No Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote since George H.W. Bush. You're free to confirm that with a simple search yourself. I'm not counting GWB's second term since he lost Florida the first time around and SCOTUS handed him the election anyway.

i hate the republican party

Then you shouldn't have any qualms about replacing it with something better. Step one would be eliminating the electoral college.

 

[Jayro]

The only vote that matters is the popular vote. It gives 1 voice per person; Any further meddling is just unnecessary. The gerrymandering, the Electorial college flipping the vote for the other person, it's all bullshit.

 

[lolcatzuru]

No Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote since George H.W. Bush. You're free to confirm that with a simple search yourself. I'm not counting GWB's second term since he lost Florida the first time around and SCOTUS handed him the election anyway.


Then you shouldn't have any qualms about replacing it with something better. Step one would be eliminating the electoral college.

i meant a source on me being a republican, and secondly, i have huge qualms, i do not condone shorting xerox every november.

 

[supermist]

i meant a source on me being a republican

The things you've said.

 

[Xzi]

i have huge qualms, i do not condone shorting xerox every november.

You might as well claim that you can become a billionaire by Xeroxing $100 dollar bills while you're at it.

 

[lolcatzuru]

The things you've said.

what about them? unless you are certifying that you are so dense that you can't recognize that just because someone can call out something obvious, or a problem like corruption, doesnt make them a member of the other team, unlike that, im not foolish enough to subscribe to the party ideals, but then again, im not a cultist.

Post automatically merged: Feb 1, 2024

You might as well claim that you can become a billionaire by Xeroxing $100 dollar bills while you're at it.

i mean i certainly could claim, that, just like you could claim you could make a comparison without intentionally being obtuse

 

[Xzi]

i mean i certainly could claim, that, just like you could claim you could make a comparison without intentionally being obtuse

You'd have to be an idiot to believe you could get away with Xeroxing ballots, measures preventing that have been in place since copiers were invented. Better?