Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

Springfield

By Springfield
in The Tailgate

 Share

Should the US abolish the electoral college?  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the US abolish the electoral college?

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      27

Recommended Posts

PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
4 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. 


The crazy thing about CA, and perhaps the best argument for scraping the EC, is that there are more GOP voters in CA than any other state besides TX and FL. More people voted for Trump in CA in 2020 than the entire population of 40 stares. FORTY STATES. 
 

And their votes do not matter.  Nobody campaigns in CA. You can just write those folks off. 
 

If we got rid of the EC and had a national popular election, those people would have a huge voice.  As it stands, there is no reason for them to even vote. Their vote is currently completely worthless. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:


The crazy thing about CA, and perhaps the best argument for scraping the EC, is that there are more GOP voters in CA than any other state besides TX and FL. More people voted for Trump in CA in 2020 than the entire population of 40 stares. FORTY STATES. 
 

And their votes do not matter.  Nobody campaigns in CA. You can just write those folks off. 
 

If we got rid of the EC and had a national popular election, those people would have a huge voice.  As it stands, there is no reason for them to even vote. Their vote is currently completely worthless. 

 

Or redraw some state lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Sisko said:

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. 

To me this is a problem caused by the fact that we pick ****ty leaders. 
 

Not how we pick them. 
 

it doesn’t matter whether an election uses popular vote or some system that breaks people into groups and weights them. The results seem bad to pretty ****ty, consistently.

 

For instance scotus judges are supposed to be confirmed

 

the fact it’s a rubber stamp for either party in power at this point, making it the president that essentially single handily pick scotus, is not going to be fixed by changing the method with which we select ****ty people. 
 

 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:


The crazy thing about CA, and perhaps the best argument for scraping the EC, is that there are more GOP voters in CA than any other state besides TX and FL. More people voted for Trump in CA in 2020 than the entire population of 40 stares. FORTY STATES. 
 

And their votes do not matter.  Nobody campaigns in CA. You can just write those folks off. 
 

If we got rid of the EC and had a national popular election, those people would have a huge voice.  As it stands, there is no reason for them to even vote. Their vote is currently completely worthless. 


this can be addrrssed by allocating partials by district. 
 

Maine and Nebraska do this. 
 

but you’re right that absolutely is the best argument. In fact, earlier I said a problem with the national vote is a place like CA controls the outcome but by suppressing those votes from the EC system they’re already having an outsized impact on the result 😂 

 

imagine if those people simply lived in another state that was either a swing state or close to it, the whole map changes. 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don’t know that being a republican in California balances out the issue I’ve highlighted

 

but it is the best argument anyone can make. (In my opinion)
 

 

 

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

It's almost like you understood why the EC was so bad there,  tshile. That's enough progress for the day...

I’ve said multiple times I’ve made an attempt to understand your alls arguments and get why you’ve taken the stance you have. 
 

this isn’t a new argument. You’ve made it yourself. It’s no different than the Wyoming proportionality in the EC. 
 

I have no problem admitting this is a good argument but big picture not thinking it’s enough to agree with abolishing the EC system. 

Edited by tshile
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

I actually don’t know anything about California republicans and what they’re about

 

someone who does might know if maybe it would be counter productive to make their votes vote more in the presidential election 😂 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOF44

HOF44

Posted
Posted

We just need a fixed ratio of population per congressional district. Each district get an electoral vote. That’s the way it was originally structured.  Then we stopped adding districts because the capital!building is to small. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
88Comrade2000

88Comrade2000

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

We just need a fixed ratio of population per congressional district. Each district get an electoral vote. That’s the way it was originally structured.  Then we stopped adding districts because the capital!building is to small. 

We know getting rid of the EC isn’t happening so this reform that Nebraska and Maine already does would at least be an attempt at reforming.

 

The 2 EVs representing senators will still be based on who wins the state overall. That’s 100 total EVs. Then you have 435 EVs representing congressman. If you award those by who wins the district like Maine and Nebraska, that alters things.

 

I don’t see it happening though as Dems will not want give up all those California and New York EVs and Republicans give up all those Texas and Florida EVs.

 

If it happened, it would change things. Where you campaign. Not sure who it will benefit. You have to go through several elections.

 

Note: DC also gets 3 EVs but we know that is solid Dem.

 

Congress should increase the size of congress, at least a little. DC deserves actual representation in congress. You can add congressional seats in other areas to even out how many citizens a congressional district represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Or redraw some state lines.

 

Wait, I thought you were joking...

 

You mean gerrymandering the whole country

via the state lines themselves?

 

😶

 

Combine the Dakotas first, otherwise, non starter for me. Smells like a recipe for a bunch of city states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Wait, I thought you were joking...

 

You mean gerrymandering the whole country

via the state lines themselves?

 

😶

 

Combine the Dakotas first, otherwise, non starter for me. Smells like a recipe for a bunch of city states.

 

I'd start with something like 50 states based roughly with equal populations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'd start with something like 50 states based roughly with equal populations.

 

Why 50?

 

That actually might be harder then it sounds considering how large some of the cities are and how depopulated huge swaths of the west are (like jus east of the rookies up and down it).

 

Feels like overkill...interesting compromise is the delegates for each state split out comparable to the vote of said state (so a candidate can get half the delegates if they win half the vote of the state) then increasing the size of the House past point of population and towards the number to make gerrymandering impossible.

 

Stopping the growth of the House because the Capital building feels shortsighted AF in hindsight...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2023/capitol-house-representatives-expansion-design/

 

 

SmartSelect_20240407_181841_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

If we're talking about one Dakotah, this fits.

 

The irony is always lost of them anyways. 

 

It truly is...

 

*skip to 1:03 to go straight to the jugular

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...