Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[Fergasun]

@tshile

Quote

 

Pretty dumb is thinking a small handful of areas should control the outcome for the entire country, as if that somehow represents America 

but I do understand how changing the rules so you always win seems appealing 😂 

 

How would giving every American an equally weighted vote for the President of the United States, who is the only office on 100 percent of the ballots equate to "a small handful of areas control the outcome of the country, as if that somehow represents America".  

I can't tell if you forgot the sarcasm tag. If so forgive me.  If not, please defend your position clearly. 

[tshile]

Look you’re bringing up a dead horse. You walked in on some regulars having fun with a topic none of us have anything new to say on. Do I don’t feel like doing the whole back and forth thing 

 

but the short of it is:

don’t believe number of people is the only way to represent the united states

we already have more local representation via house/senate, so think of a more global representation for country

the people throughout the middle are nothing like the people on the coasts, and this accounts for that

i agree the doling out of EC’s has become unbalanced and should be corrected in some way, but no I do not think just popular vote is better not do I support it. 

[dfitzo53]

You can definitely flip back through this thread to see the various view points. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Stop whining, everyone who won't shut up about disagreeing with the very foundation of our system of government. 

[88Comrade2000]

4 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

Stop whining, everyone who won't shut up about disagreeing with the very foundation of our system of government. 

The foundation of our government didn’t give women the right to vote and blacks were 3/5 and property.   That foundation was changed. If you don’t get rid of the EC, it needs to be modified.

[LadySkinsFan]

EC needs to ****ing go, just like the filibuster. Majority 50%+1 rule, like the House.

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If you don’t get rid of the EC, it needs to be modified.

 

If you want to bring positive change to our election system, focus instead on getting rid of gerrymandering and dark money in our elections.  You know, thing that at list have a snowballs chance in hell of happening.  

 

Do you think there is an above-zero percent chance of getting 35 states to agree to get rid of the EC?

[Fergasun]

6 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

If you want to bring positive change to our election system, focus instead on getting rid of gerrymandering and dark money in our elections.  You know, thing that at list have a snowballs chance in hell of happening.  

 

Do you think there is an above-zero percent chance of getting 35 states to agree to get rid of the EC?

Tell me how giving everyone in the US an equally weighted vote for the one member of our Federal Government is going to shake the "foundation of the government".  

 

It only does so if you oppose the principle of "one man, one vote".  

 

With 21st century and even late 20th century technology, the argument don't even add up other than "follow the framers".  

 

Stop defending an archaic electoral college system that unequally dilutes or strengthens everyone's vote for the one Constitutional leader we all vote for. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

@Fergasun you didn't answer my question.

[bearrock]

 

3 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

If you want to bring positive change to our election system, focus instead on getting rid of gerrymandering and dark money in our elections.  You know, thing that at list have a snowballs chance in hell of happening.  

 

Do you think there is an above-zero percent chance of getting 35 states to agree to get rid of the EC?

 

Opposing EC change or discussion because the chances of change being remote is different from opposing it because it is foundational to the US system. 

 

As plenty have pointed out in this thread, the foundation for EC has some very dark roots.  Further, the Constitution itself allows for a system of amendment.  Electoral college is no more foundational than plenty of other clauses that has been amended over the years (even if you discount the bill of rights as fruit of the amendment process).

 

As to focusing on gerrymandering and dark money, if those are your preferred targets, feel free.  I don't think you'll find many here who'll defend those practices.  But let's not pretend those issues are any easier than reforming the EC.  Citizens United would require a vast shift in SCOTUS balance or a constitutional amendment.  Stamping out gerrymandering across the country would require an amendment or wave of legislative will that has no sign of materializing.

 

In someways, one could argue that EC reform is closer, considering that the EC-Popular  vote pact is 70% of the way there to 270.  

 

If you feel that the EC discussion is a waste of time, you always have the option of not participating.  Not sure why other people shouldn't be free to discuss it in this thread.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, bearrock said:

If you feel that the EC discussion is a waste of time, you always have the option of not participating.  Not sure why other people shouldn't be free to discuss it in this thread.

 

It's not that I don't want to ha e the discussion, I just want to know if me and the other person are living in the same world first.  I'd also ask if anything new is being brought up or are we just rehashing the same points again and again for another 10 pages.

 

Anyways, my initial comment was made responding to a tweet that was whining about people whining.  So I was just returning the favor.

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

It's not that I don't want to ha e the discussion, I just want to know if me and the other person are living in the same world first.  I'd also ask if anything new is being brought up or are we just rehashing the same points again and again for another 10 pages.

 

Anyways, my initial comment was made responding to a tweet that was whining about people whining.  So I was just returning the favor.

 

I know you hate to venture into stadium, but given the leeway that many repeat points ad nauseum gets over there, I would think EC related discussion in this specific thread (even if rehashing) would get some leeway as well.  I'm sure the mods would step in if it was out of line.  Also considering the efforts that some posters such as yourself have made (a good one imo) to avoid having other political threads get derailed by EC talk, some latitude may be a good thing here.

 

There's been a lot of similar themes across 10 pages, but it's not as if the discussion has been settled (and most likely will never get settled).  For those interested in continuing the discussion/vent/eyeroll (regardless of where one falls on position), this thread appears to be the place for it imo.

[TheGreatBuzz]

20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I know you hate to venture into stadium, but given the leeway that many repeat points ad nauseum gets over there, I would think EC related discussion in this specific thread (even if rehashing) would get some leeway as well.  I'm sure the mods would step in if it was out of line.  Also considering the efforts that some posters such as yourself have made (a good one imo) to avoid having other political threads get derailed by EC talk, some latitude may be a good thing here.

 

There's been a lot of similar themes across 10 pages, but it's not as if the discussion has been settled (and most likely will never get settled).  For those interested in continuing the discussion/vent/eyeroll (regardless of where one falls on position), this thread appears to be the place for it imo.

 

I may have given off the wrong impression.  I wasn't trying to say that having the discussion was against the rules or anything.  That isn't my call to make (though I'd say we are in the rules if anyone asked).  I meant that it is a discussion that is played out.  But totally feel free to have the discussion without me, I know how to just keep scrolling.  

 

My main point was responding to the "stop whining" comment.

[Fergasun]

@The Almighty Buzz

With the National Popular Interstate Vote Compact, only 270 EVs need to be bound by the Compact.  

 

195 EVs are already bound. MI and PA are pending (no guarantee they would pass).  TX and FL plus another small state could push it over the line. 

 

TX and FL is a "pipe dream" and I don't even know why this doesn't get injected into political debates at the State level other than there is a ton of money made by media and others (political consultants) breaking the votes into 50 battleground states. 

 

Let's assume Texas broke blue in 2024 and 2028 (heard about Texas going that way) and I would think the GOP would push this.

 

Edit to add: To directly answer the question, I think 35 States is harder to get to than this compact.  But this can accomplish the popular vote without amending the Constitution.

 

Popular vote has been preferred 70-30 nationwide... but dipped to 60-40 after 2016 with Republicans flipping against it.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Fergasun

[TheGreatBuzz]

19 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

@The Almighty Buzz

With the National Popular Interstate Vote Compact, only 270 EVs need to be bound by the Compact.  

 

195 EVs are already bound. MI and PA are pending (no guarantee they would pass).  TX and FL plus another small state could push it over the line. 

 

TX and FL is a "pipe dream" and I don't even know why this doesn't get injected into political debates at the State level other than there is a ton of money made by media and others (political consultants) breaking the votes into 50 battleground states. 

 

Let's assume Texas broke blue in 2024 and 2028 (heard about Texas going that way) and I would think the GOP would push this.

 

1.  You still didn't answer my question. 

 

2.  Huh?

[bearrock]

Just now, The Almighty Buzz said:

2.  Huh?

 

I think @Fergasun is saying if a major GOP state like TX turned purple (probably needs to turn blue for a few cycles realistically) that effectively locks them out of the Presidency in a winner take all electoral vote system, you'll see the GOP flip to support the popular vote or at least an EC reform.

[TheGreatBuzz]

23 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think @Fergasun is saying if a major GOP state like TX turned purple (probably needs to turn blue for a few cycles realistically) that effectively locks them out of the Presidency in a winner take all electoral vote system, you'll see the GOP flip to support the popular vote or at least an EC reform.

 

But that isn't an argument to abolish the EC.  That is just working within the rules to get your desired outcome.  

[bearrock]

22 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

But that isn't an argument to abolish the EC.  That is just working within the rules to get your desired outcome.  

 

I think that portion of the comment was addressing whether an EC change has a realistic prospect in the future 

[TheGreatBuzz]

39 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think that portion of the comment was addressing whether an EC change has a realistic prospect in the future 

 

Gotcha. 

 

I say it still has zero chance of happening (getting rid of it).  Some states getting together to agree to work around it/within it isn't the same thing.

[HOF44]

On 3/25/2019 at 9:16 AM, HOF44 said:

The unreal thing is the EC used to be expanded as population grew.  The House of Rep's space then became full in the early 1900's so they stopped doing that. So now small states are having a disproportionate impact on elections.  Creating more room wasn't an option?? Really??

Here is how to fix it.  Add more districts, which adds more EC votes and it will work.  It’s crazy that as population increases we don’t add new congressional districts. It was always done that way in the past. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

42 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

Here is how to fix it.  Add more districts, which adds more EC votes and it will work.  It’s crazy that as population increases we don’t add new congressional districts. It was always done that way in the past. 

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix gerrymandering and have reasonable districts drawn?  Then instead of adding even more hands into the mess, reorganize districts as needed to ensure more balanced representation. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[tshile]

Well that’s why the house exists. The senate design was intentional…

[Hersh]

Just now, tshile said:

Well that’s why the house exists. The senate design was intentional…

 

but the founders likely could not have foreseen such a dramatic population disparity between states which would result in such out of balance representation. The way the guy frames it in the tweet is counterproductive.