The Electoral College Needs to Go

[sparky]

check out Maine's 'rank voting' system.....

~S~

 

[norwegen]

Yup. No state would want to forfeit its suffrage in the Senate.

Okay, this is where I stop taking you seriously.

No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. It's in the Constitution, so of course you don't take it seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. It's in the Constitution, so of course you don't take it seriously.

Has nothing to do with getting rid of the electoral college... so I don't.

Dismissed.

 

[JoeB131]

check out Maine's 'rank voting' system.....

~S~

Why? It's stupid.

 

[Polishprince]

The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The "Interstate Compact" is a load of shit. Suppose for a sec it goes into effect in 2024, and the Trumpster or someone else despised by the libs wins a majority.

Do you really think that radical leftist electors from California and New York will really vote for him, "compact" or no? This would be a one-way street, just give the loops another way to steal

 

[norwegen]

No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. It's in the Constitution, so of course you don't take it seriously.

Has nothing to do with getting rid of the electoral college... so I don't.

Dismissed.

Moonbat.

 

[candycorn]

By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

• The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
• It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
• It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
• At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
• It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
• It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
• It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
• It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.

There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.

I think you make a lot of good points up there and some bad ones. One I would add is this: When you have a figure like the blob who actively is antagonistic toward "blue states", you have a president who is clearly not acting in the best interest of those in the blue states that voted for him. Millions of Californians voted for the cheeto...yet he threatens to cut off funding for California because they are not giving him electoral votes.


The "run off" idea is a non-starter to me. We can barely muster 60% in the actual election day. How miserable would participation be on a run off when the supporters of the third and fourth place finishers have no reason to show up?

I think a better plan is to add the stipulation that to become President Elect, you have to win the Electoral Vote (majority) as well as a plurality of the popular vote (more than any other candidate). If you don't get both, the House decides the Presidency. Keep in mind. We have 2 dominant parties right now. What happens if we have 3 or 4 viable parties? You end up with hypothetically, 38%, 32%, 30% or whatever. The Runoff idea you have means that 62% of the population (or there abouts) didn't want the guy who got 38% originally. At least with the electoral college--which works fine most of the time as far as electoral voting goes--you have a clear majority.

One thing I will agree with you on is this...we need to get rid of all of these crazy assed milestones that are in the electoral college; Things like... Electors meeting 6 weeks later...the votes being official six weeks after that...

We should have a President within 2 weeks of election day. No if's ands or but's.

 

[Mac-7]

By "fake ballots", you mean, "Letting the darkies vote."

No, we mean letting the darkies vote only once in each election

and not letting illegal aliens or any non citizens vote at all

the election system has become a national disgrace but only because libs have found so many different ways to cheat

 

[JoeB131]

The "Interstate Compact" is a load of shit. Suppose for a sec it goes into effect in 2024, and the Trumpster or someone else despised by the libs wins a majority.

Do you really think that radical leftist electors from California and New York will really vote for him, "compact" or no? This would be a one-way street, just give the loops another way to steal

I suspect they probably will, for no other reason that they were the one who pushed for it.

Also, if by some miracle, Trump won the popular vote (unlikely, you can't run from prison) in 2024, he'd win the EC hands down as well.

There'd be no point in doing "backsies".

 

[candycorn]

By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

• The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
• It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
• It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
• At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
• It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
• It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
• It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
• It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.

There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.

I'd propose a modified EC. No more winner-take-all, you get state EC votes based how well you did in the popular state vote. This would allow many parties to win EC votes in each state. If no candidates the majority of EC votes for the country they could negotiate with the losers to build a coalition, similar to parliamentary systems.

Another option is ranked-choice voting. You get a slate of maybe 10 candidates from 10 different parties and the winner best reflects the majority inclination.

How'd it allow "many parties" to win EC votes? If that were the case, wouldn't they be winning them now?

 

[JoeB131]

No, we mean letting the darkies vote only once in each election

and not letting illegal aliens or any non citizens vote at all

the election system has become a national disgrace but only because libs have found so many different ways to cheat

Guy, you were never keen on letting them vote even once. You still try to find new creative ways to keep them from voting.

 

[JoeB131]

The "run off" idea is a non-starter to me. We can barely muster 60% in the actual election day. How miserable would participation be on a run off when the supporters of the third and fourth place finishers have no reason to show up?

It depends. Both parties would be motivated to appeal to the third party voters and engage them.

It looks like we are going to have pretty good turnout in Georgia for those runoffs, getting people to show up for a runoff wouldn't be a problem.

IF such a system had been in place in the past, there would be no runoff this year (biden got 51%) or 2012, 2008, 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976. Only 2016, 2000, 1996 and 1992 would have been subject to runoffs.

 

[candycorn]

The "run off" idea is a non-starter to me. We can barely muster 60% in the actual election day. How miserable would participation be on a run off when the supporters of the third and fourth place finishers have no reason to show up?

It depends. Both parties would be motivated to appeal to the third party voters and engage them.

It looks like we are going to have pretty good turnout in Georgia for those runoffs, getting people to show up for a runoff wouldn't be a problem.

IF such a system had been in place in the past, there would be no runoff this year (biden got 51%) or 2012, 2008, 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976. Only 2016, 2000, 1996 and 1992 would have been subject to runoffs.

Good points.

It occurs to me though that whatever system we have...has to work 100% of the time. There isn't any do-overs. If we had viable third parties in 12, 03, 04, 88, 84, 80, 76...who knows what type of run offs we'd have.

The GA run off participation is amplified by the blob.

Also...with our system of government...having what amounts to a coalition executive would be a death sentence in many years because we're likely to have each house of congress bitterly divided. For example, if Trump runs as an independent in 2024, the GOP would be fractured. A coalition of Trump and Biden? A coalition of Trump and Haley? How would that work?

 

[Polishprince]

The "Interstate Compact" is a load of shit. Suppose for a sec it goes into effect in 2024, and the Trumpster or someone else despised by the libs wins a majority.

Do you really think that radical leftist electors from California and New York will really vote for him, "compact" or no? This would be a one-way street, just give the loops another way to steal

I suspect they probably will, for no other reason that they were the one who pushed for it.

Also, if by some miracle, Trump won the popular vote (unlikely, you can't run from prison) in 2024, he'd win the EC hands down as well.

There'd be no point in doing "backsies".

What you are failing to consider is that changing the rules will change the number of votes cast. A lot of people in Patriotic states like West Virginia and Mississippi don't bother going to the polls nowadays because they know how their state is going. Expect turnout to triple or better in many locations.

And as far as California reneging on the compact, why wouldn't they even if the pushed for it? After all, whether the GOP candidate is Trump or Romney or McCain or Dubya, they are all fascists, racists and Literally Hitler. Why would they accede to them ascending to power, deal or no deal?

 

[Blues Man]

Personally I think there should be some protection for the smaller states.

I don't think 4 or 5 of the most populous states should be allowed to have that kind of sway over the presidency.

And if the electoral college votes were actually cast to reflect the popular votes in each state then that would at least align the electoral and the popular votes.

 

[jillian]

By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

• The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
• It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
• It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
• At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
• It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
• It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
• It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
• It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.

There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.

That can’t happen. It isn’t in the best interest of the radical right. So there will never be a constitutional amendment. We can pass a law saying all electors have to be assigned to the person who won the popular vote (or be assigned peoportionately). That won’t happen until Mitch McConnell is no longer leader of the senate.
So everyone with a brain knows what has to happen in Georgia in January in order to end minority rule of this country

 

[jillian]

Personally I think there should be some protection for the smaller states.

I don't think 4 or 5 of the most populous states should be allowed to have that kind of sway over the presidency.

And if the electoral college votes were actually cast to reflect the popular votes in each state then that would at least align the electoral and the popular votes.

Why should a minority of people control this country. Someone’s vote in Montana should not be worth 700 of mine

 

[jillian]

Personally I think there should be some protection for the smaller states.

I don't think 4 or 5 of the most populous states should be allowed to have that kind of sway over the presidency.

And if the electoral college votes were actually cast to reflect the popular votes in each state then that would at least align the electoral and the popular votes.

So we should give more power to radical right wingers lol

 

[Polishprince]

That can’t happen. It isn’t in the best interest of the radical right. So there will never be a constitutional amendment. We can pass a law saying all electors have to be assigned to the person who won the popular vote (or be assigned peoportionately). That won’t happen until Mitch McConnell is no longer leader of the senate.
So everyone with a brain knows what has to happen in Georgia in January in order to end minority rule of this country

Actually, its the Liberals who have a problem with that, not Conservatives.

Several years ago, there was a proposal in California to do exactly that. Assign the Golden Shower State's electors proportionately.

It was the LIBS , not conservatives, who united to shoot down the idea.

 

[Blues Man]

Personally I think there should be some protection for the smaller states.

I don't think 4 or 5 of the most populous states should be allowed to have that kind of sway over the presidency.

And if the electoral college votes were actually cast to reflect the popular votes in each state then that would at least align the electoral and the popular votes.

So we should give more power to radical right wingers lol

We should have the electoral college align with the popular vote.

Why does that scare you?