New Bill to eliminate the Electoral College

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2002
16,899
321
126
1. GOP morals and values are not for sale.

2. Democrats have no limits they will stop to to gain voters.


.
1. After the election of Trump you could actually write that bullshit?
2. Its already been proven in court, Republicans pass laws to disenfranchise minorities. Its Republicans who have gerrymandered us into a majority of voters still losing seats in states.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
Oct 9, 2002
26,030
23
136
They have been going for several centuries now. Any ETA on that?
That is sometimes how long it takes.

Ever hear the phrase, "Rome wasn't built in a day?" The empire didn't decline in a single day either.
 
Oct 9, 2002
26,030
23
136
I think you do too.

It’s an antiquated necessity from hundreds of years ago. Just like assigning someone to travel to Washington by foot or horse at the end of winter to cast a vote is a silly idea. There is no modern reason to travel by horse to Washington unless it’s a vacation or some kind of lifetime goal.
No.

Why should a country (state) join a union where it doesn't have an equal interest with the other members? Answer: It shouldn't.

Why should a country (state) remain in a union where its equal influence has been removed? Answer: It shouldn't.

So tell us what the purpose was at the time & how that relates to today.
See above.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
That is sometimes how long it takes.

Ever hear the phrase, "Rome wasn't built in a day?" The empire didn't decline in a single day either.
Oh okay, so the argument is as follows?

1) that the death of states that use majority voting for their chief executives is inevitable due to the inherent flaws in choosing a chief executive that way
2) you guys have no idea when that will happen
3) the timetable for the US is now at a minimum of ~2.4 centuries but you're still confident it's going to happen.

Very compelling. As a side note can you provide me any mechanism through which this theory of inevitable collapse can be disproven?
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
No.

Why should a country (state) join a union where it doesn't have an equal interest with the other members? Answer: It shouldn't.

Why should a country (state) remain in a union where its equal influence has been removed? Answer: It shouldn't.



See above.
I’ll flip this. Why should a State stay in a union where another states votes are far more important?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
No.

Why should a country (state) join a union where it doesn't have an equal interest with the other members? Answer: It shouldn't.
Why on earth would that be? States and countries join unions or other agreements where they don't have an equal interest all the time. Do you honestly think Germany and Montenegro have an equal interest in the EU? The question as to whether or not a country should join a union is a cost/benefit one. If the benefit is greater than the cost they should join, even if those benefits do not accrue to the same amount as for other members.

Why should a country (state) remain in a union where its equal influence has been removed? Answer: It shouldn't.
This is nonsense, see above.

See above.
So the purpose of the electoral college was to encourage small states to join? On that, I agree. That objective has been accomplished however so who cares anymore?

As for its removal causing states to leave that's unconstitutional anyway so it's of no concern. I would consult your avatar on the consequences for states attempting to do that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
I’ll flip this. Why should a State stay in a union where another states votes are far more important?
Yeah I'm not sure why he doesn't understand that the equality argument works for both big states and small states.
 
Oct 9, 2002
26,030
23
136
This is a bafflingly ignorant post. A state is any territory unified under a political government. Some of those are countries, some are not. I’m not ‘blinded’ to anything, I’m simply telling you that your definition is unarguably wrong.

States, insofar as the term applies to the United States, are not countries. They do not enjoy a monopoly over the use of force within their boundaries, they do not control their own foreign policy, etc. they are not countries. Period.



Your state does hve far greater power over your day to day life than the federal government does. Very few of the laws that govern your daily living are federal ones.

As far as local governments having more power than the state that’s impossible as all of their powers are derived from the state.



You seem to be ranting about what you wish the distribution of power between the states and the feds would be, not what it actually is.

Before you start lecturing other people on our system of government I suggest you learn the basics of how it works first.
Do you know why EC makes no sense to you? Because you are absolutely wrong about this.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,224
657
136
I should be amazed at how many people think this is a good idea, but I'm really not. The fact that they dont understand why its there is the first place, or comparing a national election to a city election tells me all I need to know. Our forefathers were so fearful of what could happen, they implemented this. And Trump is going to rip up the Constitution? Change the rules when he loses? Nope, thats Dems. Like usual, being hypocrites.
Since you understand why it is there, and no one else does, please explain.
 
Nov 29, 2006
12,769
60
126
No.

Why should a country (state) join a union where it doesn't have an equal interest with the other members? Answer: It shouldn't.

Why should a country (state) remain in a union where its equal influence has been removed? Answer: It shouldn't.



See above.
By what are you basing equal interest and representation on? Population?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
Do you know why EC makes no sense to you? Because you are absolutely wrong about this.
By all means explain. You've simply asserted that states are countries despite all evidence being to the contrary.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
Why should a country (state) join a union where it doesn't have an equal interest with the other members? Answer: It shouldn't.

Why should a country (state) remain in a union where its equal influence has been removed? Answer: It shouldn't.
The colonies never were countries. They signed the articles of confederation before they even won the war of independence. It only took a few years for them to find that inadequate & to establish the Constitution.

The EC never established equal influence between states. Had that been the intent it would have been structured like the Senate.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,474
93
126
Surely the US Federal government has far too much power for states to be 'countries' in any meaningful sense?

Also - is there really much chance that any Republican-leaning state that isn't Texas would actually choose to secede if the electoral college were scrapped? Because that's surely what all this comes down to in the end. Unless you go with the strict legal sense of 'a seat at the UN', the definition of 'country' is actually a bit fuzzy.

England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries' - though some argue Wales is a 'Principality', and God alone knows what Northern Ireland is - but its not terribly clear what that actually means, other than separate teams in the World Cup, so the UK can do badly in it four times as often.

Ultimately, I think, you are a country if you are prepared to go fit alone (and fight for it if necessary). Most of the states that are over-represented are also economically-dependent on the larger states and wouldn't do very well on their own.
 
Oct 18, 2005
13,910
213
136
So we're still waiting for the EC to be "explained" by Ackmed and Ichinisan since they are clearly the experts in the field. Hopefully they will grace us with their well researched wisdom soon.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
Surely the US Federal government has far too much power for states to be 'countries' in any meaningful sense?

Also - is there really much chance that any Republican-leaning state that isn't Texas would actually choose to secede if the electoral college were scrapped? Because that's surely what all this comes down to in the end. Unless you go with the strict legal sense of 'a seat at the UN', the definition of 'country' is actually a bit fuzzy.

England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries' - though some argue Wales is a 'Principality', and God alone knows what Northern Ireland is - but its not terribly clear what that actually means, other than separate teams in the World Cup, so the UK can do badly in it four times as often.

Ultimately, I think, you are a country if you are prepared to go fit alone (and fight for it if necessary). Most of the states that are over-represented are also economically-dependent on the larger states and wouldn't do very well on their own.
I don’t think the definition of country is THAT nebulous. Primarily it is that you enjoy a monopoly on the legal use of force within your boundaries and an independent foreign policy. If some other authority can come in and legal override you, you aren’t a country. Similarly, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland are not countries. Wales cannot decide to go to war with another country, for example. Northern Ireland clearly doesn’t enjoy a monopoly on force within its borders.

There’s no chance that any state would choose to secede if the electoral college were scrapped, Texas included. Texas tried seceding in the past over slavery, something far more consequential, and was mercilessly crushed.
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,811
130
126
You didn’t answer my question. Every state in the country elects its chief executive through the popular vote and has for centuries. Why aren’t they shitholes?
Some of them already are or are well on their way to being so.
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
Decent read here, it contains some projections like in 2040 70% or the voting population will have the same effect as 30% of the population.
Some word from the President regarding the EC, plus:

Above figure is in total, not from just "one side" this is from 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/opin...r-electoral-college-mess-alexander/index.html
But I hear we need to keep the electoral college because if we don’t the election would be decided by just a handful of states.
 
Nov 29, 2006
12,769
60
126
But I hear we need to keep the electoral college because if we don’t the election would be decided by just a handful of states.
They just mean it would be decided by the wrong states, and wrong type of people, is basically what they are really trying to say.
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
They just mean it would be decided by the wrong states, and wrong type of people, is basically what they are really trying to say.
Kind of what we’re saying too but like anything that has a winner & a loser it’s easier and more fair to go with the majority.
I have no shame, I’ve felt the EC should go away since the late 80s maybe early 90s. Even if Texas were to go blue I’d still say the EC needs to go. No modern purpose for it.
 
Nov 29, 2006
12,769
60
126
Kind of what we’re saying too but like anything that has a winner & a loser it’s easier and more fair to go with the majority.
I have no shame, I’ve felt the EC should go away since the late 80s maybe early 90s. Even if Texas were to go blue I’d still say the EC needs to go. No modern purpose for it.
I agree. I been anti EC since i learned about it in high school in the late 80s. I dont care what side wins as long as its fair. To me that just means the losing party needs to do better next time, or adopt a new message/platform that reaches more people.
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
I agree. I been anti EC since i learned about it in high school in the late 80s. I dont care what side wins as long as its fair. To me that just means the losing party needs to do better next time, or adopt a new message/platform that reaches more people.
Exactly my experience and thoughts. Learned about it around 86 in High School, I remember the teacher saying the benefit was the less fortunate got more say. I sort of agreed at the time but as I aged I noticed that wasn’t true and reality was candidates pander to that audience. The pandering has only gotten more extreme which makes candidates more extreme which is something no one wants regardless of where they live.
Going to popular vote should force candidates to do what is best for the majority of people instead of getting hung up on issues that few care about.

Edit:

Another quote from the story

the 2016 hairbreadth election is actually a norm in presidential contests. Half of all presidential elections have been decided by less than 75,000 votes cast across the country.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY