First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
bernie says we need to re think about the electoral college
qwueri 
16476 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

dragonlord1234 wrote:

personally i agree with the electoral colleges purpose of making it so high population centers won't have almost complete control over the country while smaller populations would get almost no say without it


Huh? States with high populations get a lion's share of the votes. That's why California sits at 55 electoral votes while Alaska has 3. And thanks to winner take all, the minority party in all but two states doesn't matter.
lawdog 
40441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 25 days ago
The Electoral College is looking more and more brilliant with each passing election. It allows small states and rural votes to still have pull and power. If this was a popular vote, do you think anyone would've visited New Hampshire? Candidates would hustle for the population centers, trolling political candy purely for those areas. You didn't see that happen in this election: Although candidates didn't ignore those areas, candidates on both sides presented messages that they targeted to the broadest measure toward all of their backers across the country. Certainly for Democrats, these issues were more heavily weighted towards urban, inner city voters, it would have been a far different message and campaign than a pure popular vote campaign would've been. Trump essentially never spent any time in California. He would've if this was a popular vote campaign.

And there's the rub: This campaign was won under the established set of rules. Those whining that the rules should be changed after their side lost, after their side played by the same rules, are absurd, and people are presently laughing at them, and will continue to be laughing at them for decades to come (the internet is forever).

I saw this analogy elsewhere, but think of each state as a game to be won, just like each game in the world series is a game to be won. In the World Series, you need to win 4 games. You can have a team win 3 world series games 15-0, but lose 4 games 1-0. The loser outscored their opponent 45-4, but lost the series. The total number of runs isn't what counts in a world series, winning the games is what matters. The same is true of this and every past election, it's the right number of states to win, not the total number of votes.
Posted 25 days ago

qwueri wrote:

Huh? States with high populations get a lion's share of the votes. That's why California sits at 55 electoral votes while Alaska has 3. And thanks to winner take all, the minority party in all but two states doesn't matter.


Hey Einstein, have you figured out that this means Alaska would effectively have NO say whatsoever if not for the electoral college?
lawdog 
40441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

qwueri wrote:


dragonlord1234 wrote:

personally i agree with the electoral colleges purpose of making it so high population centers won't have almost complete control over the country while smaller populations would get almost no say without it


Huh? States with high populations get a lion's share of the votes. That's why California sits at 55 electoral votes while Alaska has 3. And thanks to winner take all, the minority party in all but two states doesn't matter.


Each state's representation in the electoral college is based on the number of senate seats plus the number of congressional districts in a state. Which means that Wyoming, Alaska and other states that have 3 electoral votes have proportionately more power than votes in California. It means those states remain relevant. Not as relevant as other states, of course, but far more relevant than if this was a straight up popular vote.
qwueri 
16476 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

RaisedInACult wrote:

Hey Einstein, have you figured out that this means Alaska would effectively have NO say whatsoever if not for the electoral college?


As opposed to a Republican in California having zero say in the electoral college.


lawdog wrote:


Each state's representation in the electoral college is based on the number of senate seats plus the number of congressional districts in a state. Which means that Wyoming, Alaska and other states that have 3 electoral votes have proportionately more power than votes in California. It means those states remain relevant. Not as relevant as other states, of course, but far more relevant than if this was a straight up popular vote.


In theory, that would be great for smaller states. In practice, state identity factors very little into presidential policy and their vote doesn't matter at all unless they are a swing state.
4910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 25 days ago , edited 25 days ago
I think people should all be at least somewhat open to this idea, but I think it should only be something that is done going forward. In other words I think the change (if it happens) should only be put into effect following Trump's term.
24966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
Well, a state like California can already choose to give some of its electoral votes to the Republican candidate based on their popular vote. However, most Californians preferred the Democrat, so it makes sense for their representatives to do as much as possible to get the Democrat elected. They can decide to do it differently themselves, however, without needing to change the Electoral College.
51326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 24 days ago

namealreadytaken wrote:


HeartDisease wrote:
Oh shut up, Bernie. Accept Hillary's election loss with some dignity.


he lost his dignity the moment he sold his soul to her endorsed her.


Politicians souls dignity yeah those don't mix :P

Posted 24 days ago

qwueri wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:

Hey Einstein, have you figured out that this means Alaska would effectively have NO say whatsoever if not for the electoral college?


As opposed to a Republican in California having zero say in the electoral college.


So you have a problem with some State laws


keep your context straight.....hopefully isnt too big of an ask...
qwueri 
16476 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 24 days ago

RaisedInACult wrote:

So you have a problem with some State laws


keep your context straight.....hopefully isnt too big of an ask...


You mean this context?

qwueri wrote:

Huh? States with high populations get a lion's share of the votes. That's why California sits at 55 electoral votes while Alaska has 3. And thanks to winner take all, the minority party in all but two states doesn't matter.


I take issue with how all but two states are winner-take-all.
170 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CGS DIVISION 03
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
The electoral college exists because the founding fathers of the United States didn't trust a total democracy. They compared it to two wolves and a rabbit voting on what's for dinner. Meaning, the electoral college exists to protect MINORITY states,states with a lower population. You can compare it to protecting actual minority groups (Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, LGBTQAUSFIAOSN, etc.) but instead of people, its the states.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 24 days ago , edited 24 days ago
My problem with the Electoral College is a simple one. Rules are made on a state by state basis and conflict on soooooo many levels. It's like adding apples and oranges and getting bananas ... it just doesn't work. Try going into Walmart in the US and paying in a combination of US, Canadian and Mexican money. There's a 99.9% chance they'll refuse to take part of the money due to it being incompatible with the way things work. If There was an equal balance to all rules, laws and regulations it may work but as it is now it's nothing but a hodge podge thrown together in a jumble.
Posted 24 days ago

neugenx wrote:

My problem with the Electoral College is a simple one. Rules are made on a state by state basis and conflict on soooooo many levels. It's like adding apples and oranges and getting bananas ... it just doesn't work. Try going into Walmart in the US and paying in a combination of US, Canadian and Mexican money. There's a 99.9% chance they'll refuse to take part of the money due to it being incompatible with the way things work. If There was an equal balance to all rules, laws and regulations it may work but as it is now it's nothing but a hodge podge thrown together in a jumble.


States are sovereign over the federal gov



or at least they were until the federal gov decided it'd really be better if the states just pissed off and let the fedgov do whatever it wants, constitutional or not
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 24 days ago

RaisedInACult wrote:


neugenx wrote:

My problem with the Electoral College is a simple one. Rules are made on a state by state basis and conflict on soooooo many levels. It's like adding apples and oranges and getting bananas ... it just doesn't work. Try going into Walmart in the US and paying in a combination of US, Canadian and Mexican money. There's a 99.9% chance they'll refuse to take part of the money due to it being incompatible with the way things work. If There was an equal balance to all rules, laws and regulations it may work but as it is now it's nothing but a hodge podge thrown together in a jumble.


States are sovereign over the federal gov



or at least they were until the federal gov decided it'd really be better if the states just pissed off and let the fedgov do whatever it wants, constitutional or not


It's not about the States being Sovereign, I have no problem with that. I truly believe in that BUT there should be a mutually agreed on set of rules voted on and accepted by all States. It's like if we decided to put together a pickup B-Ball game we wouldn't expect to have half the guys playing one-on-one and the other half playing 21 on the same baskets, we'd want to get everyone out there shooting hoops together. It just makes sense.I'm not talking Government imposed, I'm talking a simple agreed upon series of rules.
51509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
The Electoral College in theory was a good idea to help make sure small states aren't ignored during presidential elections. However, in practice it just results in a handful of states deciding the president for everyone on their own. The majority of the population gets ignored due to the Electoral College. If you live in New York and you vote republican, your vote doesn't matter because the democrat will win anyway and so the candidates don't bother speaking to New Yorkers. The same is true if you're a democrat in Texas. Presidential candidates don't bother making their case to you. It's only swing states that they care about.

Most of the votes cast are in safe states and even in swing states where the winner is decided by 1%, whoever voted for the losing candidate has their vote thrown into the void. Nearly half the people in Florida, the biggest swing state, are told that their votes had no impact because someone else received just a few thousand more votes than their candidate and took all 29 electoral votes. Minority opinions in each state get ignored due to this system. So in reality, a few thousand people in a few states are guaranteed to chose the winner for all of us. It's those few undecided voters that the candidates focus on throughout their entire campaigns.

Even if a democrat wins New York with 80% and Florida with 50.1%, two states with 29 electoral votes, those 20% who voted for a losing candidate in NY have the same weight as those 49.9% in FL who voted for a losing candidate. Meaning neither of them have any weight at all. 100% of the electoral votes would go to the democrat in this case. Only 2 states award electoral votes based on the winners of each district and then 2 more for whoever the overall winner of the state was. All 48 other states + D.C. throw the minorities under the bus no matter how tiny the margin of victory was. The only thing that can help make sure minorities are represented is faithless electors who don't vote according to the winner of their states. But that's rare and electors face a lot of pressure if they go against the majority of their states. I think some states even make it crime or at least a misdemeanor or something like that.

TL;DR: The Electoral College was created to avoid tyranny of the majority on a national level, but ironically it's what enables tyranny of the majority in almost every state and gives more power to a handful of states to determine who gets to rule over the whole nation. It also makes it so the presidential candidates can ignore the concerns of the majority of the nation because only those few states matter.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.