Elizabeth Warren calls for an end to the Electoral College

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
the founding fathers knew that a democratic popular vote on a federal level was a bad idea. im going to side with their wisdom and not have NY, Illinois, California decide for the whole country how the president is. why even vote?

They also thought it was wise to have this idea in order to protect a system of owning other human beings as property. How wise do you think that was?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
the founding fathers knew that a democratic popular vote on a federal level was a bad idea. im going to side with their wisdom and not have NY, Illinois, California decide for the whole country how the president is. why even vote?
when has everyone in NY, IL, and CA voted in 100% lock step?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,949
16,208
126
Would this satisfy the lefties here?

This would accomplish your goal of every vote having a purpose - AND it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment (but I presume will require law change at the state level?)


I think it is the most viable option and would level the playing field enough so that swing states become a thing of the past. Every state would be campaigned.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
its clear yo dont know what Republic is and why there is the EC. you can not compare a local election to a federal election to the president.

I know exactly what a Republic is, but you obviously do not. Whether or not we are a Republic has exactly zero to do with if we have an electoral college. For example, literally every US state follows a republican form of government and none have an electoral college.

This ‘republic vs. democracy’ thing has to be the #1 thing that people who don’t know what they’re talking about try to ‘educate’ others on.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,937
9,220
136
Eliminating the EC entirely sounds like it would take more than an act of Congress—I’m no expert but I’d imagine that requires an amendment.

Now, if Congress can mandate that states’ ECs need to meet certain requirements to ensure equal representation (I.e. larger states/denser populations are no longer winner takes all?)—that might accomplish the same things and actually make Republicans more competitive in coastal states.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
the founding fathers knew that a democratic popular vote on a federal level was a bad idea. im going to side with their wisdom and not have NY, Illinois, California decide for the whole country how the president is. why even vote?

Just for you-

TMW2016-12-07printcolor_FULL.jpg
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
It is abundantly clear that you do not understand how the electoral college works as its only function is to make sure that some people's votes count more than others. That's the opposite of protecting votes, that's 'some are more equal than others'.

You could draw a Venn Diagram of people that support and like the EC and those that still pine for the days of Jim Crow. Well, it would be a shitty diagram because it would be a single circle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
Eliminating the EC entirely sounds like it would take more than an act of Congress—I’m no expert but I’d imagine that requires an amendment.

Now, if Congress can mandate that states’ ECs need to meet certain requirements to ensure equal representation (I.e. larger states/denser populations are no longer winner takes all?)—that might accomplish the same things and actually make Republicans more competitive in coastal states.

Again, national popular vote interstate compact.

Basically the constitution gives the states the right to select their presidential electors however they see fit. If states worth 51% of EC votes decide to award theirs to the winner of the national popular vote the electoral college is effectively abolished. No amendment required. No congress required.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
the founding fathers knew that a democratic popular vote on a federal level was a bad idea. im going to side with their wisdom and not have NY, Illinois, California decide for the whole country how the president is. why even vote?

Huh? You just prefer that 3 other states, let's say Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan, perhaps, do the choosing?

You're simply defending the preference of certain states over others, for some reason that you certainly aren't willing to disclose. And, if you're going to defend that one handful of states is more important in choosing a national administration over another handful of states, why do you specifically choose the handful of states that represent some exponentially tiny fraction of people and votes and, concurrently, a relatively meaningless representation of national GDP compared to the nasty handful of states that you reject?

Where is the logic in this? Clearly you aren't arguing from a quantitative position of fairness, but from something else. What is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,686
126
Again, national popular vote interstate compact.

I believe the SCOTUS would overturn it. Not because it's actually illegal, but because the SCOTUS is totally politicized at this point.

FWIW, I still think the efforts to build the NPVIC should continue.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
as oppposed to now when candidates spend all their time in iowa, new hampshire, floriduh, ohio, and 2 or 3 other states.
Trump arguably spent time in more states than that, the ones Hillary took for granted, and it cost her. Unfortunate that the least skilled politician best understood the rules of the game.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,686
126
Huh? You just prefer that 3 other states, let's say Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan, perhaps, do the choosing?

You're simply defending the preference of certain states over others, for some reason that you certainly aren't willing to disclose. And, if you're going to defend that one handful of states is more important in choosing a national administration over another handful of states, why do you specifically choose the handful of states that represent some exponentially tiny fraction of people and votes and, concurrently, a relatively meaningless representation of national GDP compared to the nasty handful of states that you reject?

Where is the logic in this? Clearly you aren't arguing from a quantitative position of fairness, but from something else. What is it?


They have nothing but poor faith arguments that they'll keep screaming from the top of their lungs because they like being in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I guess that’s why Texas is a blue state run by the tyranny of Austin and Dallas, why NYC is being funded by upstate instead of the other way around why and Florida is better known as Miami-Stan.

Seriously, real life that you can see every day shows this is clearly false. The only state where that is remotely true is California but that’s because the population of the coast is so incredibly high and the inland is essentially barren wasteland where nobody lives.
That barren wasteland is home to tens of millions of people. The examples you gave are perfect reasons why the electoral college is effective.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
That 3/5 of a human thing, needed some compensation.

It never ceases to amaze me that people quote 'the wisdom of the founders' when defending the electoral college considering the primary reason it came into existence was to protect slavery, a moral monstrosity that the founding fathers will be stained with forever. What's so wise about that?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126

Luna1968

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2019
1,202
680
136
It is abundantly clear that you do not understand how the electoral college works as its only function is to make sure that some people's votes count more than others. That's the opposite of protecting votes, that's 'some are more equal than others'.

states elect the president.
 

Luna1968

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2019
1,202
680
136
It never ceases to amaze me that people quote 'the wisdom of the founders' when defending the electoral college considering the primary reason it came into existence was to protect slavery, a moral monstrosity that the founding fathers will be stained with forever. What's so wise about that?

so mob rule. no thanks.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
That barren wasteland is home to tens of millions of people.

Uhmm, no it is not. California has just under 40 million people total. The greater LA and Bay Area CSAs ALONE count for more than 25 million and once you add in San Diego you're up to 28 million. Actually add in all the coastal counties and we're likely over 30 million, meaning 75% of the state's population or more lives in coastal areas despite it being a small fraction of the land area.

So this abundantly proves my point, only when the overwhelming majority live in that way do they dominate state politics and frankly we should be far more scared if the opposite were true. I think we all agree the one thing NO state or nation can afford is enduring minority rule. That's the most toxic form of governance possible.

The examples you gave are perfect reasons why the electoral college is effective.

That makes no sense. Texas does not have an electoral college yet the big cities there do not dominate its internal politics as you claim would happen. Florida does not have an electoral college yet the big cities do not dominate its internal politics. New York does not have an electoral college yet downstate does not dominate electoral politics despite having 2/3rds of the population. Hell, Republicans controlled the state senate until this most recent election.

We have literal evidence staring you in the face from all over the country that what you're worried about does not happen even in the state of the biggest megacity on the continent. If this level of absolutely overwhelming proof isn't enough what possibly would be? What would make you change your mind?
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,175
126
Because it creates a balance and prevents candidates from exerting all their energy towards population centers, thereby ignoring regional nuances. It forces candidates outside of echo chambers and keeps in check tyranny of the majority.
How is that any different from exerting all their energy into the "swing" states and ignoring everything else? Is it tyrannical if the majority of the people want something? The current system creates a "tyranny of the minority" then by your logic.