Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[Popeman38]

Dems could ignore the states I listed earlier (MT, ID, ND, SD), and the southern block of GA, MS, AL, TN, KY. Reps would HAVE to campaign hard in  the NE corridor, CA, FL, OH, PA, MN, WI, MI. 

 

Everybody talks about bout the popular vote win of Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. She won CA by 4,269,978 (62%). She won 55 EV, Trump won 0. A proportional EV would have awarded Clinton 34.1 EV and Trump 20.9.  In a proportional EC, Trump wins 267 EV and Clinton 265 EV, with 3rd party getting 6 EV. Under current rules, the House would decide the winner since no candidate got to 270. A good tweak would be to have this then go to a runoff election, with only Trump and Clinton on the ballot. 99.99999% chance Clinton wins a runoff. 

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

I love this place. One viewpoint is accepted as truth, and opposing POVs are dismissed. People have decided that the EC is worthless and needs to be completely killed. The ones stating the EC serves a purpose admit it needs to be updated but not scrapped altogether. Sometimes, radical changes have very big unintended consequences. Maybe moving slowly will accomplish the goal without scrapping the entire process? How would making the EC proportional not represent every vote?

 

No one owes your views anything if they are supported by points that make zero sense. 

 

Right now people campaign in like 6 “battle ground states” and the views of the rest of the country are shunned. This is by far the worst system you can come up with for elections in a country of 300 million people and 50 states, with unique issues and challenges of their own. 

 

The main population centers of the country are disproportionately losing the power of their vote at the national level and your response is “people don’t want to be ruled by the coasts”. You know the parts of the country where an overwhelming majority of the country lives and where almost all the economic activity takes place and cultural change happens.

7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Dems could ignore the states I listed earlier (MT, ID, ND, SD), and the southern block of GA, MS, AL, TN, KY. Reps would HAVE to campaign hard in  the NE corridor, CA, FL, OH, PA, MN, WI, MI. 

 

Everybody talks about bout the popular vote win of Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. She won CA by 4,269,978 (62%). She won 55 EV, Trump won 0. A proportional EV would have awarded Clinton 34.1 EV and Trump 20.9.  In a proportional EC, Trump wins 267 EV and Clinton 265 EV, with 3rd party getting 6 EV. Under current rules, the House would decide the winner since no candidate got to 270. A good tweak would be to have this then go to a runoff election, with only Trump and Clinton on the ballot. 99.99999% chance Clinton wins a runoff. 

 

There is absolutely zero reason to adopt a system like this and a system like this was never meant to be the reason for creating an electoral college. It is incremental change for the sake of incremental change, without offering any real substantial improvements. 

 

Really every modern democracy does elections in a sensible and direct way but leave it up to Americans to pointlessly complicate things for the sake of preserving the status quo, even if it no longer serves the intended purpose. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by No Excuses

[Hersh]

5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Dems could ignore the states I listed earlier (MT, ID, ND, SD), and the southern block of GA, MS, AL, TN, KY. Reps would HAVE to campaign hard in  the NE corridor, CA, FL, OH, PA, MN, WI, MI. 

 

Everybody talks about bout the popular vote win of Hillary. She won the popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. She won CA by 4,269,978 (62%). She won 55 EV, Trump won 0. A proportional EV would have awarded Clinton 34.1 EV and Trump 20.9.  In a proportional EC, Trump wins 267 EV and Clinton 265 EV, with 3rd party getting 6 EV. Under current rules, the House would decide the winner since no candidate got to 270. A good tweak would be to have this then go to a runoff election, with only Trump and Clinton on the ballot. 99.99999% chance Clinton wins a runoff. 

 

Wait, so you think the GOP candidate is going to spend time MT, ID, ND and SD? 😆😆

 

The Dems are not going to ignore any states with sizeable African American populations and they won’t ignore big college towns. The fact that you are suggesting the Dems would ignore Georgia doesn’t strengthen your argument. 

 

 

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

The fact that you are suggesting the Dems would ignore Georgia doesn’t strengthen your argument. 

 

Hardcore rolled my eyes that one too. GA is well on its way to becoming a contested state even in our dumpster fire EC system. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

I love this place. One viewpoint is accepted as truth, and opposing POVs are dismissed. People have decided that the EC is worthless and needs to be completely killed. The ones stating the EC serves a purpose admit it needs to be updated but not scrapped altogether. Sometimes, radical changes have very big unintended consequences. Maybe moving slowly will accomplish the goal without scrapping the entire process? How would making the EC proportional not represent every vote?

No other strong democracy around the world elects leaders like this. You are exactly what you are deriding others.

[Captain Wiggles]

20 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Dems could ignore the states I listed earlier (MT, ID, ND, SD), and the southern block of GA, MS, AL, TN, KY. Reps would HAVE to campaign hard in  the NE corridor, CA, FL, OH, PA, MN, WI, MI. 

 

 

 

You keep proving exactly why the EC needs to be abolished.

 

Swing states 2020

 

Quote

Election analytics website FiveThirtyEight identifies the states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin as "perennial" swing states that have regularly seen close contests over the last few presidential campaigns.

 

Once again I'll ask how is campaigning in about a dozen swing states any different than campaigning in a dozen metro areas? Oh that's right rural murica is the real America. 

[nonniey]

Tilt at windmills much?

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Tilt at windmills much?

 

There's nothing imaginary about how destructive the GOP has been over the past forty years. Exhibit A: Donald J Trump. Exhibit B: George W Bush.

[Warhead36]

I wouldn't scrap it but I'd institute % based voting. That way if a candidate gets 49% of the vote in the state and lose, they're not left with 0 electoral votes. I think it'd be more reflective of the will of the general population.

[PokerPacker]

Just to be perfectly clear, states being winner-take-all is not inherent in the the electoral college.  It is up to states to choose how their votes are distributed.  You don't need to abolish the electoral college to have proportional votes.  Mandate that states give votes proportionally (or give votes by district) and the candidate who wins the popular votes gets the extra two votes and it's still retaining the electoral college.

 

The problem I see is that it is not in a state's favor to implement proportional voting because that means that winning the state doesn't guarantee as many votes, so if some states are winner-take-all and some are not, then the winner-take-all states bring more bang-for-your-buck to compaign for, therefore the proportional states will get relative neglect.  So if we implemented some sort of federal mandate for some form of proportional vote, that would make it so no state gets punished for properly representing their people with a proportional vote.

Edited March 25, 2019 by PokerPacker

[NoCalMike]

8 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

 

 

The problem I see is that it is not in a state's favor to implement proportional voting because that means that winning the state doesn't guarantee as many votes, so if some states are winner-take-all and some are not, then the winner-take-all states bring more bang-for-your-buck to compaign for, therefore the proportional states will get relative neglect.  So if we implemented some sort of federal mandate for some form of proportional vote, that would make it so no state gets punished for properly representing their people with a proportional vote.

 

Agreed on that point, either the entire system would have to be changed to proportional EC awarding or it won't work.

 

My issue with the EC being used for modern elections is that most popular vote totals tend to be close, within 5 million or so of each other.  To me, that says the idea that "Majority tyranny reining over the minority" is not the concern it used to be.  It would be different if every single election one candidate was getting 80 million votes to their opponent's 20 million, but most popular votes tend to be pretty close.

 

I do think proportional EC implementation is something to look into and study the effects of more going forward to see if it would be a better model.   

[Riggo#44]

Whenever I read discussions about the electoral college, I always wonder if this would be a discussion if Clinton had won in 2016.

[Cooked Crack]

6 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Whenever I read discussions about the electoral college, I always wonder if this would be a discussion if Clinton had won in 2016.

People been ****ting on the EC long before Clinton lost. Clinton losing just brings it to the foreground. This is a conversation we were always going to have cause this phenomenon is going to keep happening.

[Bozo the kKklown]

27 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Whenever I read discussions about the electoral college, I always wonder if this would be a discussion if Clinton had won in 2016.

Ending the electoral college has been a discussion before Clinton became the nominee.

 

Its undemocratic.

Edited March 25, 2019 by BenningRoadSkin

[Llevron]

This touches on the EC a bit. I just wanted to share it. 

 

The overwhelming message I picked up from it is that we are deciding not to change the system at a time when almost no one has faith in it. The lack of faith in the system is what got Trump in here. And his abuse of said system is whats keeping him in it. We need to change it, but no one trusts the people in charge enough to do it. 

 

We are in a bad way. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Llevron

[twa]

Switching to popular vote would leave the transfer of power more open to manipulation and delay....especially in our increasing reliance on tech

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

Switching to popular vote would leave the transfer of power more open to manipulation and delay....especially in our increasing reliance on tech

 

Yea. A few years ago I would have argued for technology but now I dont trust that. 

 

I think we need to change the system completely. How to do that is a ****ing mystery to me though. 

[ixcuincle]

I noticed Warren got fired up about it at a CNN town hall

 

Plus Donald Trump won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote

 

Still confused why this country relies on the electoral college and catering to certain states over others. "Lot of electoral votes here. Campaign hard here. Forget those other insignificant states." 

[The Evil Genius]

13 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

I wouldn't scrap it but I'd institute % based voting. That way if a candidate gets 49% of the vote in the state and lose, they're not left with 0 electoral votes. I think it'd be more reflective of the will of the general population.

 

Proportional EC votes only work if all the States have equal representation in the EC.

 

Based on the smallest states getting 3, California would need around 100 to be considered equal. Right now they get barely half of that.

[HOF44]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Proportional EC votes only work if all the States have equal representation in the EC.

 

Based on the smallest states getting 3, California would need around 100 to be considered equal. Right now they get barely half of that.

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??

Edited March 25, 2019 by HOF44

[The Evil Genius]

Correction, California should have closer to 150 EC votes if everything was equal (based on the smallest states getting 3 ECs).

Edited March 25, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[twa]

The number of states with fewer than the standard size congressional district are small.

 

I thought Dems liked helping minorities. 

[The Evil Genius]

On 3/24/2019 at 6:37 AM, Popeman38 said:

The Electoral College serves a purpose. It prevents the coasts from ruling the country.  

 

If that's where the majority of the population lies, so what? However they won't be the deciding factor since I'd suspect the party vote split is 55/45 in totality in these coastal states.

 

I have to admit, the notion that both parties won't covet votes from large population centers in the other parts of the US is foreign to me. Why wouldn't both parties try to lock up votes in Houston/Dullass, Atlanta, St Louis, Detroit, Chicago, etc? Especially if every vote counts under a pure election?

 

 

8 minutes ago, twa said:

The number of states with fewer than the standard size congressional district are small.

 

I thought Dems liked helping minorities. 

 

We're talking about apples and oranges. Not pomelos. Stay on topic. 😁

Edited March 25, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[TheGreatBuzz]

@Momma There Goes That Man  Here ya go.

[Cooked Crack]

 

Get rid of it. There goes one argument people who support this archaic system have.