The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[blackhawk]

Lets put this into a little perspective this only the 5th time the electroal vote and popular vote were not the same and before 2000 the last time it happened was 1888 with Grover Cleveland. This is the exception not the rule.

 

[easyt65]

This is kinda what you get when both parties end up running candidates whose unfavorability numbers are higher than their favorable numbers.

The process doesn't need to be changed - the parties need to stop running corrupt, criminal, lying, scandalous, obnoxious, millionaire, globalst, elitist, self-serving losers - BETTER, MORE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.

 

[Spare_change]

Lets put this into a little perspective this only the 5th time the electroal vote and popular vote were not the same and before 2000 the last time it happened was 1888 with Grover Cleveland. This is the exception not the rule.

Perspective??? Nahhh --- that's way overrated.

 

[Slyhunter]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

We have enough Republican Governors we can do one of those thingamajigs where 3/4 of them can vote to change the constitution and get rid of the 14th amendment. Trim it up a bit. We have a once in a life time opportunity.

 

[Spare_change]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

We have enough Republican Governors we can do one of those thingamajigs where 3/4 of them can vote to change the constitution and get rid of the 14th amendment. Trim it up a bit. We have a once in a life time opportunity.

Yep --- them Republican governors are gonna jump right on THAT bandwagon.

 

[Pogo]

Lets put this into a little perspective this only the 5th time the electroal vote and popular vote were not the same and before 2000 the last time it happened was 1888 with Grover Cleveland. This is the exception not the rule.

So what?

This post reminds me of the company that contracted with a Japanese supplier for parts, instructing that they wanted a 5% failure rate. The Japanese supplier duly sent the order, and in a separate shipment were the 5% failures. "We're not sure why you wanted failing parts" they wrote, "but here they are".

Why would you tolerate ANY "exceptions" to the will of the People?

 

[Pogo]

Let this sink in. That ^ stat is a doughy pantload.

Disprove it. Election data, voting statistics, exit polls.

Anything but your asshattery.

So it's "one county one vote" on your planet?

Must be a wacko place.

 

[Pogo]

Electoral College versus Popular Vote is suddenly THE hottest issue regarding elections...why is that again?

Because, once again for you kids who came in on the short bus and didn't hear this the first 57 times we pointed it out --- IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR. Because we're sitting in the only time period when the Electrical College and what it does is relevant ---- the period between election day and mid-December when the EC VOTES.

It comes up every four years, and in four years from now it will come up AGAIN.

And we'll repeat the same thing in four minutes again for those of you too dim to comprehend that.

The 'hottest' issue regarding elections and how to prevent people from being disenfranchise SHOULD be a discussion on how to prevent Democrats from RIGHING Primaries / Elections in the future, thereby screwing millions of voters, like Unca Bernie's followers.

Unfortunately that's how political parties work --- they're not obligated to run primaries and when they do they're not obligated even to follow the results. One of the many reasons old entrenched political parties suck moose cock. The Republican Party too could have sent Rump packing, despite any primary results --- like they did in 1912. They too blew it.

 

[easyt65]

Nice justification of the DNC rigging their Primary and f*ing Bernie and his supporters!




Funny how Dems always seem to be able to justify anything and everything they do, especially when they break the law.

 

[JoeMoma]

Lets put this into a little perspective this only the 5th time the electroal vote and popular vote were not the same and before 2000 the last time it happened was 1888 with Grover Cleveland. This is the exception not the rule.

So what?

This post reminds me of the company that contracted with a Japanese supplier for parts, instructing that they wanted a 5% failure rate. The Japanese supplier duly sent the order, and in a separate shipment were the 5% failures. "We're not sure why you wanted failing parts" they wrote, "but here they are".

Why would you tolerate ANY "exceptions" to the will of the People?

Winning the EC but not the popular vote is not a failure. The system worked just as it is supposed too. Don't like it, then start a movement to amend the constitution.

Why would you tolerated ANY "exceptions" to the will of the People? Well, regardless of whether the election is rewarded to HRC on popular vote or DJT with the EC, more than 50% of the people did not get their will. Both candidates received less than 50% of the vote.

 

[blackhawk]

Lets put this into a little perspective this only the 5th time the electroal vote and popular vote were not the same and before 2000 the last time it happened was 1888 with Grover Cleveland. This is the exception not the rule.

So what?

This post reminds me of the company that contracted with a Japanese supplier for parts, instructing that they wanted a 5% failure rate. The Japanese supplier duly sent the order, and in a separate shipment were the 5% failures. "We're not sure why you wanted failing parts" they wrote, "but here they are".

Why would you tolerate ANY "exceptions" to the will of the People?

This post reminds me of partisan sour grapes I love you people who had no problem with the system till you didn't get your way.

 

[Redfish]

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.

If there are more people in the cities, why shouldn't they have proportionately more power?

NO, our 4 or 5 biggest cities should not run our country. Are you really that stupid?

"Cities" do not vote, my friend. Just as "states" should not vote.

Just as "counties" or "parishes" do not vote when Louisiana elects a Governor or Senator. That would be absurd.

Whelp ------- same thing.

Why should N'awlins and BR and maybe Shreveport run Louisiana?
See? You cannot make that argument. Because it isn't one.

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.

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

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.

You're trying to penalize people because they belong to a group.

Should my vote for NYS governor be given extra weight because I live in rural NY, not in the city?

Yes or no.

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Aw, your corrupt, lying, cheating candidate did not win. Go cry in a corner, no one cares.

 

[Redfish]

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.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

 

[easyt65]

'The electoral college is a disaster for democracy....er, I mean DEMOCRATS.'

 

[xyz]

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

There are a couple of other subdivisions like independent cities in Virginia and boroughs in Alaska (and several cities).

But counties (or equivalent) would also not work because they don't all have the same population size.

 

[Redfish]

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

There are a couple of other subdivisions like independent cities in Virginia and boroughs in Alaska (and several cities).

But counties (or equivalent) would also not work because they don't all have the same population size.

I agree, the EC is the best compromise. The founders were smart people, they got it right.

 

[Pogo]

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

There are a couple of other subdivisions like independent cities in Virginia and boroughs in Alaska (and several cities).

But counties (or equivalent) would also not work because they don't all have the same population size.

They don't need to. Know why?
Because PEOPLE all have the same population size: "one".

 

[Pogo]

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.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

 

[Pogo]

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

Is that how it works in every other country in the world where voters who elect a head of state do it with a direct popular vote? Hm?

Oh wait, not every other country does that; there's one that does it indirectly like we do. Pakistan.
They know what they're doin' huh? Damn Karachi-Democrats, they want to run everything.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

That's (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy; declare something "will never work", therefore throw up one's hands and make no attempt. It's ghey.

And (b) it isn't necessary to eliminate the EC anyway -- how the EC votes is up to the several states. There's no part of the Constitution anywhere that dictates they have to vote "winner take all". None. Zero. Two states already don't; they happen to subdivide by Congresscritter district but they could do it any way they like including proportional to the state's PV.

So changing how the shitstem works doesn't require 38 states. It just requires one at a time.