Electoral College. Just why?

[cnm]

Blaming me for not loving equality and advocating 'limited' democracy at the same time. Just wow!

You claim to love it

We believe in equality and democracy

when your constitution, which you haven't amended, strictly forbids it. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Brian_1349]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

At least it sounds better than the system we've got right now. I believe though it is highly unfair and even undemocratic to let some people decide for us when there is popular vote results available. Lack of centralization in the US, that was supposed to enforce democracy in this country, sustains outdated social practices and slows down social development.

 

[Brian_1349]

Blaming me for not loving equality and advocating 'limited' democracy at the same time. Just wow!

You claim to love it

We believe in equality and democracy

when your constitution, which you haven't amended, strictly forbids it. You can't have it both ways.

You cannot be that stupid. Try actually reading my posts first and then come back for a discussion. Constitution is not only about rights and liberties. When times change we, as a nation, have a right to amend the laws and live according to new rules. Two words: slavery and homosexuality. The former was legal but now it is not. The latter was once outlawed and now is widely recognized. Tell me how Constitution is above common sense and ever-changing environment once again.

 

[candycorn]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

At least it sounds better than the system we've got right now. I believe though it is highly unfair and even undemocratic to let some people decide for us when there is popular vote results available. Lack of centralization in the US, that was supposed to enforce democracy in this country, sustains outdated social practices and slows down social development.

Well, this is the US and, for some reason, whatever the 50 or so founders thought was a good idea in the late 1700's are still the rules we have to live by regardless of whether or not they fit into the 20th century realities.

If you were watching this from Mars, you'd be laughing your ass off at the crap Americans choose to care about.

 

[g5000]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

 

[chikenwing]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

 

[chikenwing]

The one tweak,that I think would make sense,going to a proportional count,not this all or nothing,this would discourage campaigns from just focusing on states like Ohio and Florida.New york is a fine example so is Cal,the cities almost always carry the state,disenfranchising the rest of the state.

 

[cnm]

We believe in equality and democracy

You cannot be that stupid.

Seems to me you're the one being stupid, making obviously false statements. If you really loved equality and democracy you'd have set up the system to reflect that.

 

[candycorn]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.

Ensuring that the President-Elect ALSO wins the plurality of the popular vote is a hedge against just favoring those states that are in play; as we see now. The most recent example would be Bush V. Gore in 2000. As I recall, the House was controlled by the GOP so the 12th Amendment would have given us the same result--Bush wins.

The electoral map can change with each election. California was a lock for the GOP for much of the 1980's. Carter actually won Texas believe it or not.

 

[cnm]

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Hilarity.

 

[candycorn]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

 

[chikenwing]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.

Ensuring that the President-Elect ALSO wins the plurality of the popular vote is a hedge against just favoring those states that are in play; as we see now. The most recent example would be Bush V. Gore in 2000. As I recall, the House was controlled by the GOP so the 12th Amendment would have given us the same result--Bush wins.

The electoral map can change with each election. California was a lock for the GOP for much of the 1980's. Carter actually won Texas believe it or not.

Once again if you require a plurality of popular votes,that is what you have a popular vote.

 

[Nyvin]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Umm...no. Blue areas are the country's money makers...specifically big cities are where you make real cash. I'd love to see any emperical evidence whatsoever showing your statement to be remotely true.

There's a reason all the high per capita areas of the country are democratic ones...it's because that's where all the money is and that's where people want to live to make that money. If you think Alabama and Mississippi are keeping New York and California afloat you have another thing coming...

 

[dilloduck]

We still have an electoral college because politicians like it that way. It makes it much easier for them to plan a campaign strategy.

 

[Nyvin]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

 

[candycorn]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.

Ensuring that the President-Elect ALSO wins the plurality of the popular vote is a hedge against just favoring those states that are in play; as we see now. The most recent example would be Bush V. Gore in 2000. As I recall, the House was controlled by the GOP so the 12th Amendment would have given us the same result--Bush wins.

The electoral map can change with each election. California was a lock for the GOP for much of the 1980's. Carter actually won Texas believe it or not.

Once again if you require a plurality of popular votes,that is what you have a popular vote.

Yet if you get 300 million votes and lose the Electoral College; you have to go to the House. My plan serves all masters.

 

[candycorn]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

 

[Sonny Clark]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

 

[candycorn]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

 

[Nyvin]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

Yes, but that's because they won the "popular vote" (at that time the House vote) and there was no EC. If you work out the math it's quite difficult to draw a realistic map with the Democrats winning the EC while losing the popular vote.

It's possible on the GOP side because they rely on sweeping all the swing states by slender margins, like they did both in 2000 and 2004. The states they bank up big victory margins only add up to around 140 EC votes. For the Democrats they win the bluer states pretty safely up to ~210-220 EC votes or around there, and then just need ~60 or so votes from states with smaller margins like PA, WI, CO, VA, etc.

By the time the Democrats are trying to win in places like NC or FL...they already have sooooo many wasted votes in the big blue states like CA and NY that the popular vote is most likely theirs already (like in 2000).