Why the hell do you still have an electoral college?

[Texashiker]

You in another thread, re: you having to go to the emergency room if you can't get your taxpayer subsidized insurance in time:

And?

I believe socialism works in a lot of cases.

 

[antihelten]

Actually, it doesn't take a Constitutional change to effectively nullify the Electoral College. There was a movement some time back to get states to vote with the popular majority, instead of with whatever their local population voted. If enough states signed on, it wouldn't matter what the rest did. But the rule wasn't to take effect until enough states signed on, and I guess not enough have yet.

On the other hand, it would take a Constitutional amendment to allow instant run-off voting, which I think is much more important than getting rid of the Electoral College.

If anyones curious it's known as the National Popular Vote bill. It binds the electoral votes of a state to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The whole thing only takes effect once states totalling 270 electoral votes have joined. Currently 165 total votes have joined (across 11 states).

 

[flexy]

other wise the big cities would be all that matters.

And what actually would be wrong if "the big cities" would be all that matters?
OF COURSE it should matter given that most people live "in the big cities".

If 70% of people live in urban areas, and 30% in rural areas....obviously the views of the 70% (majority) of people should BE EQUAL, they are, after all, the majority.

I understand very well the sense of the EC....but I could also spin this *heavily* in favor of abandoning the EC..since it's not exactly logical that a minority should have (quantitatively speaking) the same influence as the majority.

You argue: Having the urban majority override the rural minority == Unfair
I argue: Having a rural minority overriding the MAJORITY of people == Unfair

So or so, SOMEONE gets fucked. Popular vote seems much more reasonable to me (not because Trump won), simply because it's the most logical thing to do. One person, one vote.

 

[flexy]

I live in CA and I'm actually glad CA (and NY) don't get to default override the entire country every time.

I don't agree with this. Looking at numbers, the popular vote versus the EC vote is normally about equal to the EC result, or differs from it merely "somewhat". Ok, I just looked it up...from ONE HUNDRED TWENTY MILLION total votes cast this time, the popular vote "difference" is only 200,000! This is even less than I expected. This is proof that the popular vote is by far not as disconnected from the actual EC result, at all (as you people claim), means that the argument that the popular vote would substantially "screw" the result (and therefore the view of people as a whole) is nonsense.

 

[Roflmouth]

It looks like Clinton narrowly got a majority of the vote. And yet she lost. Wat

To anger you.

 

[Ichinisan]

My main problem is that dividing up the vote into chunks according to state lines is so incredibly arbitrary, and leads to votes having unequal value. It would make more sense to divide up the country's votes according to SAT scores, at least then you could do it by percentiles and get 50 even chunks.

"Arbitrary?"

Do you understand the definition of a "state?"

 

[Ichinisan]

And what actually would be wrong if "the big cities" would be all that matters?
OF COURSE it should matter given that most people live "in the big cities".

If 70% of people live in urban areas, and 30% in rural areas....obviously the views of the 70% (majority) of people should BE EQUAL, they are, after all, the majority.

I understand very well the sense of the EC....but I could also spin this *heavily* in favor of abandoning the EC..since it's not exactly logical that a minority should have (quantitatively speaking) the same influence as the majority.

You argue: Having the urban majority override the rural minority == Unfair
I argue: Having a rural minority overriding the MAJORITY of people == Unfair

So or so, SOMEONE gets fucked. Popular vote seems much more reasonable to me (not because Trump won), simply because it's the most logical thing to do. One person, one vote.

There would be no reason for a "state" (nation) to remain in the union if it didn't have an equal [fair] stake in the union and the union did not represent the interests of that state.

Think about it.

 

[Torn Mind]

Because smaller states love that love their disproportionate influence over the legislature want to maintain their disproportionate influence over the presidency as well.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan's "betrayal" is what cost the Democrats. The hippie West's extra 200k would have silenced those states' voter disapproval of Democratic leadership if the popular vote was the way of the land.

 

[nickqt]

I'd get rid of it just to stop Florida's madness.

Florida Man is unstoppable.

 

[stormkroe]

OK, cool, the next time a rural area is on fire here I'll be happy that it's not Alberta and neglected for months due to a PM's personal biases.

Can't like this post enough.

 

[NTMBK]

"Arbitrary?"

Do you understand the definition of a "state?"

Yes, it's a bunch of lines drawn on a map by a bunch of dead aristocrats. They are a dumb way of dividing up the votes of a country.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yes, it's a bunch of lines drawn on a map by a bunch of dead aristocrats. They are a dumb way of dividing up the votes of a country.

You think you know, but you don't.

A nation is a state. A state is a nation.

A state governor is the leader of a nation.

The "United States of America" is just a group of individual states. Each with their own laws.

While the federal government has built all of its overreaching control on the inter-state commerce clause, its only supposed to regulate inter-state and foreign matters, including protection from foreign threats.

The federal government is supposed to have nearly no control or influence over our individual lives.

The state would have some control.

Your county/city would have more control.

You would have absolute control over your home/property, limited only where your freedoms conflict with someone else's.

People have forgotten how a "free" country was supposed to work and mistakenly think the federal government is supposed to be supreme ruler over all and directly control the lives of individuals.

 

[fskimospy]

Considering your avatar is Lincoln presumably you realize our country hasn't worked that way in about 150 years.

You might think you know that the federal government is supposed to have almost no control over our lives and it's supposed to be all state government, but you're wrong. You've been wrong for a century and a half or so.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I like the electoral college. We are a nation of states with different laws and overall importance to the country. The electoral college gives states a voice.

 

[NTMBK]

You think you know, but you don't.

A nation is a state. A state is a nation.

A state governor is the leader of a nation.

The "United States of America" is just a group of individual states. Each with their own laws.

While the federal government has built all of its overreaching control on the inter-state commerce clause, its only supposed to regulate inter-state and foreign matters, including protection from foreign threats.

The federal government is supposed to have nearly no control or influence over our individual lives.

The state would have some control.

Your county/city would have more control.

You would have absolute control over your home/property, limited only where your freedoms conflict with someone else's.

People have forgotten how a "free" country was supposed to work and mistakenly think the federal government is supposed to be supreme ruler over all and directly control the lives of individuals.

Yes, and slaves are worth 3/5 of a man, right?

Just one or two things have changed since 1787.

 

[fskimospy]

I like the electoral college. We are a nation of states with different laws and overall importance to the country. The electoral college gives states a voice.

The electoral college gives people in certain states a voice and basically renders the voice of people in all the other states irrelevant. Why do we decide who is president based on what the people in Florida think?

I mean seriously. Florida, of all places.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The electoral college gives people in certain states a voice and basically renders the voice of people in all the other states irrelevant.

Abstracting it like that hides your intentions to the point of deception. Say it how it is: I don't like how the system makes my side's voters less important than the other side.

If Hillary didn't take the rust belt for granted (aka normally people on her side) she would have won.

The point is to make it so almost no single GROUP of voters can be ignored and it works well at doing that.

 

[fskimospy]

Abstracting it like that hides your intentions to the point of deception. Say it how it is: I don't like how the system makes my side's voters less important than the other side.

If Hillary didn't take the rust belt for granted (aka normally people on her side) she would have won.

The point is to make it so almost no single GROUP of voters can be ignored and it works well at doing that.

I'm sorry but your post is either wrong or deliberately deceptive. I've been against the electoral college my entire life. If you can't imagine why people think the EC is stupid without partisan advantage that's your fault not mine.

The electoral college does not in any way ensure that no group of voters can be ignored. As an excellent example, look at literally every safe red or blue state. A national popular vote would do far more to ensure that every group has a voice.

 

[Indus]

The electoral college gives people in certain states a voice and basically renders the voice of people in all the other states irrelevant. Why do we decide who is president based on what the people in Florida think?

I mean seriously. Florida, of all places.

Its amazing though that the state of New York or California or Texas is just irrelevant.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Funny, had the results been the other way around this thread and others similar to it wouldn't be posted in here.
More sour grape threads by the party of sour grapes.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny, had the results been the other way around this thread and others similar to it wouldn't be posted in here.
More sour grape threads by the party of sour grapes.

I've been against the electoral college for years. Are you claiming that I would have suddenly changed my lifelong opinion on it if the situation were reversed? If so, that's pretty ridiculous.

The electoral college is stupid regardless of what outcome it provides and I think you know that.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Doesn't change the fact had the election gone the other way, these threads would not exist.

I guess you'll have to hate the EC the rest of your life, it ain't going anywhere.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't change the fact had the election gone the other way, these threads would not exist.

So to be clear, you think the thread is correct but you're somehow mad that people posted it? That's pretty strange.

I guess you'll have to hate the EC the rest of your life, it ain't going anywhere.

I guess we'll see! We're a bit over halfway to eliminating it as things stand now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Regardless, if having to live with a stupid historical decision to placate slave owners is the worst thing I have to live with I'll feel pretty good about my life.

 

[Jaskalas]

There has to be a group of people smart enough to look through the BS and see free means someone else pays for it.

Is there a time someone else doesn't pay for it?
I fear economics is not what you think it is.

 

[Abwx]

The "United States of America" is just a group of individual states. Each with their own laws.

These are actually provinces but certainly not states, they have none of the attribute a state has, not even on paper.

They were eventually states before the secession war since some estimated at the time that they had the right to secede from the US, the secession war was the violent juridical act that aknowledged that the so called states were states only in name but neither in status nor in right..