Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[Skins24]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Perhaps, and hear me out, you should try reading this thread. 

Did.

 

No reasonable explanation for going against the will of the people in this manner has been presented.

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

Did.

 

No reasonable explanation for going against the will of the people in this manner has been presented.

How about you quote a few of the posts you found about this while reading and then we can discuss of the explanations stated then are reasonable.

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

Did.

 

No reasonable explanation for going against the will of the people in this manner has been presented.

Agree with @TheGreatBuzz  please explain what you think you read. Because im pretty suspicious. 

[PleaseBlitz]

I guess we’re done here.  

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Skins24 said:

But this ISN'T better than the status quo. This has the potential to render millions more votes useless than our current system.

 

Examples?

 

Which states you think this will impact the most thats either considering it or already joined?

 

@PleaseBlitz is right, this isn't really a national election, it's a couple states on the fence that determine the whole thing for the most part as every other state you almost kinda know what they gonna do already.

 

Some states like Ohio and Florida aren't swing states anymore, imo, and neither is showing they plan to vote in this anytime soon.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The National Popular Vote Interstate,and the District of Columbia.

 

 

That this is worse is like, your opinion, man...you got a better idea???

Edited April 6 by Renegade7

[PleaseBlitz]

Thats a good post @Renegade7, i  don’t think @Skins24is engaging in good faith. 

[Skins24]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How about you quote a few of the posts you found about this while reading and then we can discuss of the explanations stated then are reasonable.

That's what I'm saying...

There are no quotes. It was first mentioned on page 6, but no explanation was given as to about how this is better than our current system.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Examples?

 

Which states you think this will impact the most thats either considering it or already joined?

 

That this is worse is like, your opinion, man...you got a better idea???

I did give an example in like the second post. With something like this, you can't just look at the current political climate, you have to look ahead at potential hiccups. So I'll ask again - 

If you vote blue. Your state votes blue. Red wins the popular vote. The people who are supposed to represent your blue vote, vote red instead. Will you be happy?

 

If they vote red, those millions of blue votes are trashed.

 

How is this better than the current system?

 

I already said if we can find a better way, I'm all for abolishing the EC. I don't know how to make that clearer. I just know this is not that better way.

Edited April 6 by Skins24

[CousinsCowgirl84]

28 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

 

 

I did give an example in like the second post. With something like this, you can't just look at the current political climate, you have to look ahead at potential hiccups. So I'll ask again - 

If you vote blue. Your state votes blue. Red wins the popular vote. The people who are supposed to represent your blue vote, vote red instead. Will you be happy?

 

How would this happen in a popular vote election? Also you shouldnt just a system based on if it gets the results you want. You should judge it on whether it gets the correct results. 

Edited April 6 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PleaseBlitz]

A complete cop out. What a ****ing disappointment.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Examples?

 

Which states you think this will impact the most thats either considering it or already joined?

 

@PleaseBlitz is right, this isn't really a national election, it's a couple states on the fence that determine the whole thing for the most part as every other state you almost kinda know what they gonna do already.

 

Some states like Ohio and Florida aren't swing states anymore, imo, and neither is showing they plan to vote in this anytime soon.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The National Popular Vote Interstate,and the District of Columbia.

 

 

That this is worse is like, your opinion, man...you got a better idea???

This seems very likely to trigger a constitutional crisis. The idea is sound but for some reason I doubt electors will vote the way they are bound to vote when push comes to shove under certain circumstances.

Edited April 6 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, Skins24 said:

But this ISN'T better than the status quo. This has the potential to render millions more votes useless than our current system.

This makes literally every vote count equally as the winner of the popular vote wins the election.

[tshile]

This is great because it’s all blue states and they ride on dems winning the popular vote. 
 

I’ll enjoy the election where republicans win the popular vote and all these dem states cast their electors for the republican, when all along not a single red state ever has their electors vote against their state’s results because they never signed onto it 

 

(the way things are going who knows if we’ll ever see that day but I sure hope we do 😂)

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Which states you think this will impact the most thats either considering it or already joined?

Right now?  None. 
 

but this right here is the flaw. The assumption that what is, will always be. Changing demographics down the road can certainly create a situation where dems are not always winning the popular vote, and some of these states become affected because their EC’s (the thing that actually determines the winner) go for the other side. 
 

the country has a pretty rich history of demographics changing over time… you said it yourself. States that used to be swing states, currently are not; states that used to be a lock, are now swing or potential swing states. 
 

so long as this remains a commitment only by (currently) blue states, there will always exist an opportunity for a states EVs (the thing that matters) to go against the states voters because of the popular vote (the thing that doesn’t matter)

 

(which is to say nothing of the likelihood of said opportunity)

[Skins24]

11 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

This makes literally every vote count equally as the winner of the popular vote wins the election.

So then this would require a new form of government as we would no longer be a representative democracy.

And this really doesn't solve the problem of the rural areas or small states having a voice. So, does every vote have equal weight?

 

 

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

A complete cop out. What a ****ing disappointment.  

Ok buddy 😂

I even asked for your help. Got completely unnecessary attitude in return. Disappointing indeed. 

[PokerPacker]

4 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

So then this would require a new form of government as we would no longer be a representative democracy.

And this really doesn't solve the problem of the rural areas or small states having a voice. So, does every vote have equal weight?

Oh, I didn't realize that this would abolish congress.  Silly me.

[Skins24]

5 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

For states that have more than 1 district, is it wrong for them to throw all of the state's electoral college votes to the party that won the state's popular vote even if your district voted for someone else?  Isn't it going against the will of the people to have their district throw its vote to somebody that did not win the district?

Meant to talk about this earlier.

Yes, it kind of is. So if we're talking better alternatives - 1 vote per district, majority districts wins.

Ban gerrymandering of course.

[Skins24]

10 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Oh, I didn't realize that this would abolish congress.  Silly me.

Representation applies to the Executive branch too.

When we vote we have electors who are supposed to represent us. 

Edited April 6 by Skins24

[Renegade7]

56 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

This seems very likely to trigger a constitutional crisis. The idea is sound but for some reason I doubt electors will vote the way they are bound to vote when push comes to shove under certain circumstances.

 

The States have the right to allocate their electors, but it's a process from what I can tell has to be in writing and sounds like voted into "this is how we do it"...not on a whim "I'm not feelin this"...I don't understand this that's as "flexible" as you fear, I'd have same concern as you if it was, honestly.

[Renegade7]

45 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right now?  None. 
 

but this right here is the flaw. The assumption that what is, will always be.

 

It's not an assumption when it's clearly a bandaid proposed by the states until congress does their job.

 

Why I'm fine with it, we've changed how we vote for who represents us before, Senators didn't use to get voted in by you and me, now they do.

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, Skins24 said:

Meant to talk about this earlier.

Yes, it kind of is. So if we're talking better alternatives - 1 vote per district, majority districts wins.

Ban gerrymandering of course.

Here's the deal: I'm not exactly a supporter of popular vote wins the election.  I think my history in this thread through the years backs that up; go back to my post on the first page, and my post on the previous page.  I believe the ideal solution involves increasing the number of representatives so they represent closer to the number of people they used to before the house was arbitrarily capped, and to end gerrymandering.  I also believe states should not be giving all of their votes to whomever won the state, because the state is effectively steamrolling 45% of its people, but if you don't bundle all of your votes together as one, you limit the value courting your state, so it is in the state's best interest to do so.  The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much chance for these to be implemented.  The folks in power are the folks who benefit from the current arrangement, and are the folks who have the authority to change it.

The popular-vote pact, however, does seem a possible goal to reach.  It doesn't require an act of congress to vote against congress-critters' best interests.  It just requires enough states to buy in to achieve the 270 vote threshold.  Not an easy task, but does seem possible.  I'm not down with the argument that this ignores the will of the voters, considering the will of the voters of these states is that the president be elected by popular vote.  And in this case it gives value to all of their voters.  And all voters in the country.  No more is a Democrat in Texas voting in vain, or a Republican in California.  It does diminish the pull of the less populous states, but as the current electoral college stands, their voters get a ludicrously outsized voice allowing for the tyranny of the minority.  If I had to pick between two imperfect systems, I'd rather the one where majority rules than where minority rules.  If those small states don't like it, their Congress-critters can then push for real meaningful reform; like my suggestion of growing the House like in the days of yore.  It still grants the senate bump, but makes it a much smaller, more reasonable bump.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's not an assumption when it's clearly a bandaid proposed by the states until congress does their job.

 

Why I'm fine with it, we've changed how we vote for who represents us before, Senators didn't use to get voted in by you and me, now they do.

Until congress amends the constitution?

 😂 

 

Sure. 

They can do that after they figure out how to actually fund the government 😂 

[bearrock]

6 hours ago, tshile said:

Right now?  None. 
 

but this right here is the flaw. The assumption that what is, will always be. Changing demographics down the road can certainly create a situation where dems are not always winning the popular vote, and some of these states become affected because their EC’s (the thing that actually determines the winner) go for the other side. 
 

the country has a pretty rich history of demographics changing over time… you said it yourself. States that used to be swing states, currently are not; states that used to be a lock, are now swing or potential swing states. 
 

so long as this remains a commitment only by (currently) blue states, there will always exist an opportunity for a states EVs (the thing that matters) to go against the states voters because of the popular vote (the thing that doesn’t matter)

 

(which is to say nothing of the likelihood of said opportunity)

 

The compact provides that selecting the elector in favor of the popular vote winner is only enforced if the states joining the compact represents the majority for that election.  So for example, if the compact states represent the majority in 2024, but census change puts them below in 2032, the compact would no longer be enforced in 2032.  It would lay dormant until the compact states represent the majority again.

[dfitzo53]

The question I always come back to is, if you were re-designing our country's government from scratch today, would you include something like the electoral college? If so, why?

 

My suspicion is that even most people who defend the electoral college would say no, but I don't know for sure. There isn't much modern logic that supports it. 

[The Sisko]

8 hours ago, Skins24 said:

That's what I'm saying...

There are no quotes. It was first mentioned on page 6, but no explanation was given as to about how this is better than our current system.

 

I did give an example in like the second post. With something like this, you can't just look at the current political climate, you have to look ahead at potential hiccups. So I'll ask again - 

If you vote blue. Your state votes blue. Red wins the popular vote. The people who are supposed to represent your blue vote, vote red instead. Will you be happy?

 

If they vote red, those millions of blue votes are trashed.

 

How is this better than the current system?

 

I already said if we can find a better way, I'm all for abolishing the EC. I don't know how to make that clearer. I just know this is not that better way.

Others have tried, but I’m going to take a stab at it. The irony of your position is that you’re arguing against what you’re arguing for.

Imagine that in statewide elections, say for senate, that each district has electoral votes as is the case nationally. Your district votes heavily in favor of candidate A, who doesn’t receive the majority of votes statewide. Is this district’s vote nullified because the hypothetical electors are required to vote in candidate B? Is it no longer a democracy? In other words, whichever side loses will be in the same position you describe, just without the electoral vote process based on winner take all.

I understand the concept of the sovereignty of the states, and why it exists. However, it creates artificial boundaries that are magnifying the power of some votes to the detriment of others. This solution is actually ingenious in that it uses one of the root causes of the problem to solve the problem. 

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

The compact provides that selecting the elector in favor of the popular vote winner is only enforced if the states joining the compact represents the majority for that election.  So for example, if the compact states represent the majority in 2024, but census change puts them below in 2032, the compact would no longer be enforced in 2032.  It would lay dormant until the compact states represent the majority again.

gotcha. So it only works when it’s in their favor.  😂 

29 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

The question I always come back to is, if you were re-designing our country's government from scratch today, would you include something like the electoral college? If so, why?

 

My suspicion is that even most people who defend the electoral college would say no, but I don't know for sure. There isn't much modern logic that supports it. 

This is in the explanation for why popular vote is stupid. 
 

you all just don’t like it or wo t accept it and keep saying the EC makes individual votes worthless or outsized values and ignore the pitfalls of popular vote. 
 

just like you ignore that popular vote gets you control in other ways at the top, and that we have a system that’s counter balanced. 
 

it really just comes down to dems not liking that the EC levels the playing field on the president, and doesn’t just hand it over to the major cities to decide every year.