The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Pogo]

Hey, who said conservatives hate minorities?

They love that a minority can elect a president. They love that a minority of Senators can block legislation supported by 90% of the American people...

Want a popular vote?
Homosexual marriage, abortion, immigration.
Lets put them all up to a majority vote.

Same sex marriage was found constitutional by the court that was appointed by the president, elected by the electoral college,

and approved by the Senate, the chamber whose membership is determined in a system that favors the small, rural states.

lol, you lose.

Suddenly you are back to having 9 people decide for 350 million.

No, let's use your popular vote idea.

Your map coincides with this one showing where most PEOPLE live. How fascinating.

Zackly. You can use the same map to exhibit where most crime is, where most traffic accidents are, where most cancer is diagnosed. Or you can use it to exhibit where most art museums are, most K-mart stores or most good restaurants. But that in no way means the presence of an art museum causes cancer.

 

[Pogo]

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, who said conservatives hate minorities?

They love that a minority can elect a president. They love that a minority of Senators can block legislation supported by 90% of the American people...

Want a popular vote?
Homosexual marriage, abortion, immigration.
Lets put them all up to a majority vote.

Same sex marriage was found constitutional by the court that was appointed by the president, elected by the electoral college,

and approved by the Senate, the chamber whose membership is determined in a system that favors the small, rural states.

lol, you lose.

Suddenly you are back to having 9 people decide for 350 million.

No, let's use your popular vote idea.

Your map coincides with this one showing where most PEOPLE live. How fascinating.

Zackly. You can use the same map to exhibit where most crime is, where most traffic accidents are, where most cancer is diagnosed. Or you can use it to exhibit where most art museums are, most K-mart stores or most good restaurants. But that in no way means the presence of an art museum causes cancer.

Weatherman yet again in the thread suggests civil liberties are somehow at the mercy of majority vote. Silly weatherman.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

agree, and thanks to Obama and our biased media, we are currently the divided states of America.

Do you understand why liberals and progressives want us divided?

Actually as already repeatedly explained the Electrical College keeps us divided, because the EC is the only reason the concept of "red" and "blue" states even exists. Without the EC, there's no such thing.

Think about it.

Of course there. For example, with the EC there are four states with an unitary blue government. Many red unitary state governments exist.

Think about it.

 

[Pogo]

Trump, two days ago: “I’m not going to change my mind just because I won,” the president-elect said. “But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

So he was right in 2012 and he's still right now.

Good for him.

 

[Pogo]

"If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!" - Trump

Popular vote is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Neither of these is an actual functional statement. There is no way to hold a national popular vote where the votes of smaller states are not counted. Nor has anyone ever suggested that anywhere.

Prove me wrong.

To the contrary --- there are already smaller entities not counted, and those are the votes of every voter who voted contrary to what their states Electors will cast.

My state for instance voted narrowly for Rump. And we have 15 EVs. When the EC votes, if it follows usual pattern --- it will cast not 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton, which would reflect what the citizens actually chose --- but ALL 15 for Rump, as if it had been unanimous. And that's bullshit. Some 47% of our state votes will not be counted at all.

Where's the "protection of the smaller" now? Hm?

 

[Pogo]

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

It would require a constitutional amendment.

It would recieve popular support, but with Republicans being strategically advantaged by it, they would oppose it. If the amendment process got underway, they would just make a state rights argument.

Since there are many more red states than blue, it is very unlikely such an amendment would pass. I may be wrong, but an amendment has to be ratified by two thirds of the states to pass.

Likely so ---- but that only means that states would vote according to where their own singular self-interest lies rather than what's right for the country.

Here's a fun fact -- the various states are not required by the Constitution to cast winner-take-all votes as they commonly do (and two in fact do not). How each state picks its Electors is specifically and pointedly reserved to the judgment of that state's Legislature. So the approach to cutting the legs out from under the effects of the EC could be at the state level, one at a time. That would also take a movement, but it's another avenue.

 

[Pogo]

you are ignoring one pertinent fact. Most large city dwellers are left leaning if not blatant democrats. Residents of our large cities do not represent the demographics of the entire country. The EC gives a proportional voice to every citizen no matter where he or she lives.

So what? You're suggesting here that "people who don't vote the way I do should have their vote count less"? They're part of the electorate whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, vote the other way. Again, one voter, one vote. No more, no fewer.

It's interesting though that suddenly when this topic comes up as it does every four years, the old mantra of "cities run by Democrats" jumps out the window and y'all suddenly acknowledge what I keep pointing out --- that virtually ALL cities are run by Democrats. Why do you think that is? Why don't you try to fix it? And what happens to your argument when you draw back in time a century or so ago when cities were mainly run by Republicans? What then?

No Virginia, there's no Santa Claus, and whether your election runs this way or that way should NEVER depend on whether it means your candidate gets elected or not.

As to your Louisiana example, Orleans parish and Baton Rouge (two parishes) do control most state wide elections------and lean left.

They only "control" in the sense that they have more numbers. But the fact remains.... a voter in the Garden District has exactly the same number of votes as a voter in Winnfield ---- one. And that would not change.

I am not suggesting something like the EC for states, but at the national level it is the best alternative, and it was proven again this year as the final counts show that Trump won both the EC and the PV.

Nobody is suggesting something like the EC for states, and no one does it, and that's my point ----- if it were a system that actually did what you describe in "protecting the interests of smaller areas", then states would be using the same model for the same reason. And yet, the number of states that do that is.............. zero. And I don't see anybody crying "mob rule" after a state elects this Governor or that Senator.

And no, Rump will not win the PV, not that it's really relevant to this topic anyway except as one example.

using your logic, we should only allow California and New York to vote in presidential elections, since the votes of other states would be meaningless.

Again, there's no way to make that argument work. As it already is, thanks to the EC, the vote of every Californian and every New Yorker who voted for the New York candidate is *already* meaningless, since their states will decree that EVERYBODY HERE voted for Hillary. Which is simply not the case.

 

[Flopper]

Popular vote is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

View attachment 98544

The electoral vote is like losing the 7th game of the World Series and then finding out that by some strange calculation,

you're now actually World Champions.

I think the strongest argument for the popular vote is that people in 80% of our states are simple ignored by the candidates who concentrate on a handful of "battleground states" that will decide the election. I live in a sold blue state that hasn't gone republican in the last 8 presidential elections. Excluding fund raisers, each candidate has had exactly one rally in my state. After the election, the administration always pays careful attention to those crucial battleground states.

The EC is responsible for much of the division that's tearing the country apart. The two political parties expend relatively little effort selling their political philosophy to states they know they are going to loose. Thus the red states become redder and the blue states become bluer.

 

[Pogo]

Popular vote is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

View attachment 98544

The electoral vote is like losing the 7th game of the World Series and then finding out that by some strange calculation,

you're now actually World Champions.

I think the strongest argument for the popular vote is that people in 80% of our states are simple ignored by the candidates who concentrate on a handful of "battleground states" that will decide the election. I live in a sold blue state that hasn't gone republican in the last 8 presidential elections. Excluding fund raisers, each candidate has had exactly one rally in my state. After the election, careful attention is always paid to those crucial battleground states.

The EC is responsible for much of the division that's tearing the country apart. The two political parties expend relatively little effort selling their political philosophy to states that they know they are going to loose. Thus the red states become redder and the blue states become bluer.

Excellent point. Whatever the intentions of the EC, its effect has been to divide. It's been at least arguably responsible for delaying this country's abolishing slavery, for foot-dragging on enfranchising women, and now it's splintered the country into a checkerboard of "red" and "blue" zones where we might as well have fences with signs saying "You are entering the Republican Sector".

And the case for keeping the status quo seems to boil down to "because that's the way we've always done it and I'm afraid of change". Of course if you always do what you've always done, you'll continue to get what you've always got.

 

[Flopper]

Popular vote is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

View attachment 98544

The electoral vote is like losing the 7th game of the World Series and then finding out that by some strange calculation,

you're now actually World Champions.

I think the strongest argument for the popular vote is that people in 80% of our states are simple ignored by the candidates who concentrate on a handful of "battleground states" that will decide the election. I live in a sold blue state that hasn't gone republican in the last 8 presidential elections. Excluding fund raisers, each candidate has had exactly one rally in my state. After the election, careful attention is always paid to those crucial battleground states.

The EC is responsible for much of the division that's tearing the country apart. The two political parties expend relatively little effort selling their political philosophy to states that they know they are going to loose. Thus the red states become redder and the blue states become bluer.

Excellent point. Whatever the intentions of the EC, its effect has been to divide. It's been at least arguably responsible for delaying this country's abolishing slavery, for foot-dragging on enfranchising women, and now it's splintered the country into a checkerboard of "red" and "blue" zones where we might as well have fences with signs saying "You are entering the Republican Sector".

And the case for keeping the status quo seems to boil down to "because that's the way we've always done it and I'm afraid of change". Of course if you always do what you've always done, you'll continue to get what you've always got.

Since the approval of 38 states is needed to change from an EC to a popular vote, it can't happen today and maybe not tomorrow. The only way that would guarantee the end of the EC would be more strong political parties because most often no party would have 272 electoral votes. Three strong parties would mean the House of Representatives would select many of our president. Four strong political parties would mean the House would select almost all of our presidents and thus make voting in a presidential election a waste of time and effort.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The President-Elect's tweets from 2012 have been uncovered, when he believed that Barack Obama was going to win the election despite Mitt Romney actually getting more votes.

Mr Trump tweeted the following four years ago:

Donald Trump: What He Said Four Years Ago v What He... - Donald Trump - US Election - Politics - LBC

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just in case it hasn't been pointed out, Trump said that on election day 2012, when it appeared at one point that Obama might win while behind in the popular vote.

Big surprise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But she did win. You just won't acknowledge it.

Thank you for demonstrating how liberals are devoid of reality.

Funny, liberals were demanding Republicans accept the outcome of the election....but after Hillary loses...well, we have people like you.

Hillary has been REJECTED by the American people for a 2nd and FINAL time.

Have fun the next 4 years supporting 'President' Hillary, especially after she goes to jail as 'promised'.

No, the American PEOPLE chose Hillary Clinton.

 

[easyt65]

No, the American PEOPLE chose Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, good luck with that lie...

Since Obama cancelled WH tours, Hillary won't even be able to BUY A TICKET to get in now.


..

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, the American PEOPLE chose Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, good luck with that lie...

Since Obama cancelled WH tours, Hillary won't even be able to BUY A TICKET to get in now.


..

Long after you're history, history will show that Hillary Clinton beat Trump until the votes got thrown into the 18th century meat grinder called the electoral college,

where what went in bore no resemblance to what came out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But she did win. You just won't acknowledge it.

Thank you for demonstrating how liberals are devoid of reality.

Funny, liberals were demanding Republicans accept the outcome of the election....but after Hillary loses...well, we have people like you.

Hillary has been REJECTED by the American people for a 2nd and FINAL time.

Have fun the next 4 years supporting 'President' Hillary, especially after she goes to jail as 'promised'.

No, the American PEOPLE chose Hillary Clinton.

"There are zero electoral votes in the state of denial"

--Some dude on the Kelly File just now

 

[JoeMoma]

No, the American PEOPLE chose Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, good luck with that lie...

Since Obama cancelled WH tours, Hillary won't even be able to BUY A TICKET to get in now.


..

Long after you're history, history will show that Hillary Clinton beat Trump until the votes got thrown into the 18th century meat grinder called the electoral college,

where what went in bore no resemblance to what came out.

History will show that both HRC and DJT knew the rules of the EC going into the campaign, which is why they concentrated their efforts on the swing states.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just in case it hasn't been pointed out, Trump said that on election day 2012, when it appeared at one point that Obama might win while behind in the popular vote.

Big surprise.

Big surprise that you're the one making the same arguments now. Same argument, different decade, same state of denial. Trump is the new president now, deal with it. That, or I can give you the numbers to the last two mental hospitals I stayed in and you can check yourself in there.