Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

How does EC level the playing field other than giving non populous states an EC per vote advantage over the larger populous states?

 

Because the # of people concentrated in cities and the surrounding suburbs significantly outnumber everyone else. 
 

so you have one set of lifestyle and needs outweigh the other. 
 

the EC balances that back out so one lifestyle and set of needs isn’t the only one that wins all the time. 
 

(again - I think it needs to be adjusted to be more fair and has become out of whack. That’s different than saying it needs to be tossed for popular vote)

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

Truly the only argument being made here to keep it is that it's the only avenue for GOP Presidents to get elected. 

 

As if its my problem that the party that abandoned you has made an emphasis to also abandon the last 2 generations. 

if you’re going to be that disingenuous then have at it

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't bother participating in this conversation much. @tshile seems to be representing my general position pretty well himself. I just want to add one point; in the spirit of non-racist "states rights", i support states allocating their votes how they see fit. If the people don't like it,  they need to affect that change. 
 

 

yeah I don’t know why I bothered. I knew better and did it anyways (story of my life) cause @bearrockand @Renegade7 are polite and reasonable and I was trying to be respectful instead of being like “lol figure it out yourself we already discussed it earlier in the thread”

 

I’ll again point out that I think I’ve made an effort to understand their gripes, and explain what I think they’re missing, and I’ve yet to see where any of them have attempted to do the same. 
 

it’s the same talking points over and over and I’d get further trying to explain it a rock

Edited April 6 by tshile

[Renegade7]

I'd like to ask a question without its purpose seeming too much towards making point I've already made, really want to understand evidence and concerns to following point I keep seeing...

 

This idea that cities and costal regions could have a level of power that allows them to completely overrule the needs or concerns of rural areas and interior of the country.

 

What evidence is there towards that in the last 20 years?

 

Is it because one is typically represented by Democrats and the other typically represented by GOP?

 

I've seen Dems propose and pass expanding Rural Broadband access and GOP try to block it and brag about it once it gets passed and installed anyway.

 

Should the push for restricting women's right to choose as we're seeing it now really be looked at as something Cities and coastal areas should not only "understand" but help facilitate because of its support in rural areas?  How many prominently rural states are trying to push for as little exemptions, such as rape or incest, as possible now?

 

If it gets to a point of something so obvious like diverting water resources towards cities and leaving rural areas to whither and die (a potential near future reality with climate change)...I okay, I get it...but is that happening right now?

 

What concerns of rural areas are being blocked or ignored by higher concentrated population centers, or big states refusing to help or address needs of small states?

 

I don't know if I articulated that in a way to not seem overly partisan or snarky...jus when I hear the will of the people potentially being ignored (outside this obvious discussion of EC vs Popular vote, given it would be a potential undesired side effect of favoring larger population centers over rural areas in political power) I'm trying to understand specifics regarding policy a fear of being ignored or blown off.  Ignored or blown off on what exactly?

[Renegade7]

41 minutes ago, tshile said:

yeah I don’t know why I bothered. I knew better and did it anyways (story of my life) cause @bearrockand @Renegade7 are polite and reasonable and I was trying to be respectful instead of being like “lol figure it out yourself we already discussed it earlier in the thread”

 

I’ll again point out that I think I’ve made an effort to understand their gripes, and explain what I think they’re missing, and I’ve yet to see where any of them have attempted to do the same. 
 

it’s the same talking points over and over and I’d get further trying to explain it a rock

 

The truth is no matter how open minded I try to be towards multiple options to ultimately address the problems between EC and Popular Vote...it's very hard for me not to support the shortcut presented by NPVIC.

 

Like you mentioned, you and I want same thing in long run. But disagree in how to get there..we're jus having two different conversations with respect to what the long term fix should be and the need for a change now in the meantime.

 

I stand at whatever the long-term solution should be, we need to protect our ability to get to it, even if it's a shortcut.  I mentioned to @CousinsCowgirl84 I can't get behind this shortcut if it leads to a potential constitutional crisis because it seems too flexible versus near as rigid in "this is what we're doing" as the constitution is.  That's not what I'm seeing attacked or proven here, it's to your point NPVIC isn't and can't be a long-term solution, that I agree on.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

The truth is no matter how open minded I try to be towards multiple options to ultimately address the problems between EC and Popular Vote...it's very hard for me not to support the shortcut presented by NPVIC.

 

Like you mentioned, you and I want same thing in long run. But disagree in how to get there..we're jus having two different conversations with respect to what the long term fix should be and the need for a change now in the meantime.

 

I stand at whatever the long-term solution should be, we need to protect our ability to get to it, even if it's a shortcut.  I mentioned to @CousinsCowgirl84 I can't get behind this shortcut if it leads to a potential constitutional crisis because it seems too flexible versus near as rigid in "this is what we're doing" as the constitution is.  That's not what I'm seeing attacked or proven here, it's to your point NPVIC isn't and can't be a long-term solution, that I agree on.

I thought that electors are the one who actually cast electoral collage, and they are supposed to vote for the people their state voted for (or under this new law, how the majority of people vote). I can see an instance where an elector isn’t willing to vote for the majority candidate. I don’t see the most leftist county elector in California ever casting a vote for someone like Trump, even if they were bound to do it. Of course, my interpretation of how electors work might not be correct, but I thought that was the fear in 2020, that electors would opt not to vote Biden.

[Fergasun]

People can believe what they want now.  But the "we can't give urban voters power" was probably "wink, wink, nod, nod" racism in the 60s and 70s when this came up.  And Southern Whites for sure understood what it meant.  

 

It should be called out for what it is now.  Gee, wonder why "urban voters" don't feel their vote counts.  And why some groups want to keep the argument alive.  That others latch onto the argument...

[Skins24]

17 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I'd like to ask a question without its purpose seeming too much towards making point I've already made, really want to understand evidence and concerns to following point I keep seeing...

 

This idea that cities and costal regions could have a level of power that allows them to completely overrule the needs or concerns of rural areas and interior of the country.

 

What evidence is there towards that in the last 20 years?

 

Is it because one is typically represented by Democrats and the other typically represented by GOP?

 

I've seen Dems propose and pass expanding Rural Broadband access and GOP try to block it and brag about it once it gets passed and installed anyway.

 

Should the push for restricting women's right to choose as we're seeing it now really be looked at as something Cities and coastal areas should not only "understand" but help facilitate because of its support in rural areas?  How many prominently rural states are trying to push for as little exemptions, such as rape or incest, as possible now?

 

If it gets to a point of something so obvious like diverting water resources towards cities and leaving rural areas to whither and die (a potential near future reality with climate change)...I okay, I get it...but is that happening right now?

 

What concerns of rural areas are being blocked or ignored by higher concentrated population centers, or big states refusing to help or address needs of small states?

I think someone mentioned this before,  but we can't look at the right now and think it will always be.

Basic demographics and demographic trends show the urban areas have and would continue to grow in power (in this scenario.) They're addressing the needs of the small states for a while? Great. Is the potential there for them to stop doing so? 

Doesn't matter if they're doing it. Can they?

If yes, are we cool with that? Or are we taking it on good faith that everyone will always look out for each other?

 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I thought that electors are the one who actually cast electoral collage, and they are supposed to vote for the people their state voted for (or under this new law, how the majority of people vote). I can see an instance where an elector isn’t willing to vote for the majority candidate. I don’t see the most leftist county elector in California ever casting a vote for someone like Trump, even if they were bound to do it. Of course, my interpretation of how electors work might not be correct, but I thought that was the fear in 2020, that electors would opt not to vote Biden.

 

The language of the "binding to vote with popular vote" sounds like heart of your concern,  thats fair,  id have to look into it more feel as comfortable as.I really should be saying i am...I'm suprised this hasn't made it to SCOTUS, but feels inevitable if it gets any closer to activating.

[tshile]

There’s definitely an argument that the binding of EC votes is a problem and it was not intended to be that way. 
 

and last I checked no, not every state is that way. 

Edited April 6 by tshile

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

If yes, are we cool with that? Or are we taking it on good faith that everyone will always look out for each other?

 

 

Fair question...in context I'm not convinced the rural areas are looking out for cities right now. 

 

What people seem to fear the cities will do it feels like rural areas are already doing.  They are acting spiteful and demonizing cities through rhetoric and policy.

 

There are so many people in these rural areas and smaller states that are voting with their middle finger right now and that's huge reason Trump isn't gone yet (he's the embodiment of that).

 

And I want to stop here because I'm not giving specifics and not getting any.  If the point is "this could happen with the guardrails taken down"...okay, noted.

 

Dems have to continue to clarify their stances with respect to its fair left aspects, I did vote for Bernie but dems should of never let him run as one.

 

Climate change is going to impact resources we typically take for granted in this country.  We aren't acting united now, yea, maybe it is hope we do when push comes to shove in the next 20-30 years.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

What concerns of rural areas are being blocked or ignored by higher concentrated population centers, or big states refusing to help or address needs of small states?

 

I think @tshile has been pretty clear he's worried about the future.  Right now, there might not be a big issues where that's happening but that doesn't mean in 20 years there won't be.

 

But I think you can see an area of concern now in terms of climate change actions and land preservation/water management.  There was a lot of water management post-WWII where a lot of dams were built and land was gained that has been used for farming and agriculture where those dams are not being changed or torn down, and it has people living in those areas concerned.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2023/klamath-river-dam-removal/

 

But New Orleans floods and it's we're going to rebuild.  Much of the NY and NJ coast line get destroyed and it is we are going to rebuild and even do things like build a sea wall for Staten Island.  There's no sense that part of the solution to mitigating climate change is depopulating costal regions along the east coast and allow areas that were historically water ways (much of Boston and NYC are built on old landfill), wet lands, and flood plains become what they were and instead in a lot of cases we're doing more building right up against the water.

 

My mom lives in rural MD.  They've lived there since I was young.  She lives 200 yards from a small stream.  Over time there have been nothing but more and more restrictions on what can be done with the land while building and infrastructure in the more populated parts of the state get bigger and things like the Baltimore Inner Harbor were redone and "revitalized".  If you care about the bay bringing people into that area and even into Camden Yards with the traffic and associated pollution doesn't make much sense.

Edited April 6 by PeterMP

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

What people seem to fear the cities will do it feels like rural areas are already doing.  They are acting spiteful and demonizing cities through rhetoric and policy.

 

There are so many people in these rural areas and smaller states that are voting with their middle finger right now and that's huge reason Trump isn't gone yet (he's the embodiment of that).

I don’t think the right answer is for either group to have outsized power. 
 

my issue is that popular vote swings the pendulum too far in the other direction

 

the concern the EC is out of balance is totally legit and should be solved. 

part of the problem is people see moral righteousness in their political ideology. It’s not hard to think how people in rural areas want and need things that are different. But if you convince yourself that their wants and needs are simply rooted in hatred and ignorance it allows you to write those differences off as unimportant - or even think it’s good to adjust the system so they lose any ability to have a voice in a presidential election.  (This problem exists in both directions, and in a variety of ways, just illustrating one example)
 

this would be less of an issue if the federal government (and the executive specifically) haven’t been sucking up power over the decades. If states had more control over themselves, I’d be less against the idea. 
 

I think part of the problem is some people have attached themselves to the idea that the only way to “fairly” represent people is a popular vote. I totally get why if you think that, the rest of this will never make sense. But if you’re limited to that mentality then it is what it is; no one can fix that for you (general you, you’ve explained you’re trying to be open minded.) The reality is that it’s not the only way. I’m not aware of another country in the world that is a democracy, that is this large, that has this level of diversity throughout it. Comparing us to a smaller, closer to monolithic European country seems to miss some pretty important distinctions. I’m not sure any country in the world has to somehow navigate such challenges and maintain a democracy the way we do. (I’m aware other countries have rural and city people, hopefully what I said makes sense but I suck at communicating sometimes)

 

🤷‍♂️

Finally - one party seemed invested in making the government as dysfunctional as possible. I absolutely understand the desire to remove voting power from the people that support them, but I don’t think it’s the right way to solve that problem either.

Edited April 6 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'd rather see a massive redrawing of state lines before a switch to just pure popular vote. 

[The Evil Genius]

People act like large population states like California and New York don't have very very large rural populations. 

 

How many of them aren't voting at the national level because their votes don't mean anything?

 

Can't speak for NY, but California is basically 3 or 4 states alone with how the populations views differ. 

Edited April 6 by The Evil Genius

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

People act like large population states like California and New York don't have very very large rural population. How many of them aren't voting at thr national level because their votes don't mean anything?

 

Given those districts are largely GOP in terms of the House and state governments, I think very few.  Enough of them are showing up to vote GOP for the house and state representatives.  That people would show up to vote for the House and in state elections and not vote for President or Senate seems unlikely.

 

I'm pretty sure if the GOP felt like that abolishing the EC would help them by brining out more votes in national elections, they'd be all over it.

Edited April 6 by PeterMP

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

How many of them aren't voting at the national level because their votes don't mean anything?

On this point - I don’t have sympathy for people that come up with an excuse to not vote. 
 

It’s your civic duty and it’s the one thing you can do to have a voice and if you choose to make excuses then I have zero interest in adjusting a single thing to cater to you. 

29 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'd rather see a massive redrawing of state lines before a switch to just pure popular vote. 

 Could you imagine the mess that would be 😂 

[The Sisko]

6 hours ago, Skins24 said:

The thing is, I'm not arguing for anything.

Your smaller scale example doesn't work as that's not how any of the states vote. The folks in District A don't care who's in District B, because they're not going to represent them. He's not even on the ballot so he can't get more votes statewide.

So you’re saying a US Senate race isn’t statewide? The Senators we (allegedly) elect aren’t responsible for representing the entire state? Who knew every state only has two districts designated for Senate elections only?🤔

 

Nothing more to see here folks. We’re done. 

Edited April 6 by The Sisko

[TheGreatBuzz]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 Could you imagine the mess that would be 😂 

 

Yet for some reason changing the manner our votes count, which whether for good or bad reasons is the very basis for the design of our government, makes more sense than revisiting some arbitrary lines that were drawn before had any clue what physical size we'd become.

[Busch1724]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'm pretty sure if the GOP felt like that abolishing the EC would help them by brining out more votes in national elections, they'd be all over it.

 

Also if Dems couldn't win national elections or have a majority of the vote but were still benefiting from the EC, you'd be damn sure their stance would be similar to the Republicans now. 

[Skins24]

32 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

So you’re saying a US Senate race isn’t statewide? The Senators we (allegedly) elect aren’t responsible for representing the entire state? Who knew every state only has two districts designated for Senate elections only?🤔

 

Nothing more to see here folks. We’re done. 

When you broke it down by district I automatically went to Rep, as that made more sense (when talking about voting by district.) My bad.

lol, this is a discussion about elections on a message board. Not that serious folks 🙂

Snipe not required.

 

Still, the comparison still doesn't quite work. First, the fact that there are two. How would that work with electors?

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Given those districts are largely GOP in terms of the House and state governments, I think very few.  Enough of them are showing up to vote GOP for the house and state representatives.  That people would show up to vote for the House and in state elections and not vote for President or Senate seems unlikely.

 

This of course assumes the districts are fairly drawn by the State. Which we already know they aren't. 

[The Evil Genius]

Fwiw, when the House was originally created, it had 65 members for a total representative population of 3.5mil. Now it has 435 members representing 330+mil people. The House is much less (roughly 1/13 as) reprentative than was originally intended. And it wasn't until 1913ish that it was capped at 435. Despite having 30% of the population we have now. 

Edited April 6 by The Evil Genius

[The Sisko]

2 hours ago, Skins24 said:

When you broke it down by district I automatically went to Rep, as that made more sense (when talking about voting by district.) My bad.

lol, this is a discussion about elections on a message board. Not that serious folks 🙂

Snipe not required.

 

Still, the comparison still doesn't quite work. First, the fact that there are two. How would that work with electors?

Fair enough. It’s not an exact match because districts don’t have the EC. However, if you take my scenario a step further and imagine that the state in my Senate race assigned the same weight to each district without regard to their population, that’s what the EC does. When looking at a similar setup in one state, I think it’s easier to see that the EC is BS.

Having a POTUS not elected by the popular vote pick SCOTUS judges makes the problem even worse because it allows the minority to capture two of the three branches of government. Add in Moscow Mitch being allowed to steal a seat, and the Dems not implementing reforms, and it’s not hard to see why many of us see the system as rigged. Tя☭mp is right about that, but it’s obviously rigged in his and the Grand Oligarch’s Party’s favor. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

This of course assumes the districts are fairly drawn by the State. Which we already know they aren't. 

 

Neither CA or NY are considered to be very gerrymandered so in those particular states that seems to unlikely to be an issue.  And the worse gerrymandered states tend to be Republican (there are some exceptions) that again if they were suppressing the vote, it seems likely they would change.

[88Comrade2000]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

People act like large population states like California and New York don't have very very large rural populations. 

 

How many of them aren't voting at the national level because their votes don't mean anything?

 

Can't speak for NY, but California is basically 3 or 4 states alone with how the populations views differ. 

Break up California and Texas and New York. Heck, you coukd probably do the same with Florida.

[Captain Wiggles]

Oh hell naw. One Florida is already one too many. 🤣