Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

No, but Breitbart is. 

 

I dare not go over there.  And if I do, I look at the comments, followed by a good laugh.  Then I feel bad about myself.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, tshile said:

then what is it im missing?

 

so long as not everyone’s on board how is what I described not accurate?

 

Enough states to total 270 electoral votes have to be on board.  Not "everyone" but enough guarantee the outcome given our current EC system.  I explained this in my first post. 

[tshile]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Enough states to total 270 electoral votes have to be on board.  Not "everyone" but enough guarantee the outcome given our current EC system.  I explained this in my first post. 

Yeah I get that. 
 

it doesn’t change what I said. Please do explain. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, tshile said:

Of course not. This is purely a “we didn’t win so we want to change the rules”

 

sort of like how many of these same people now want to expand scotus so they can change the fact that their guy didn’t get to appoint the justices when it was time. 

 

Not to get off topic here, but those same people sure as **** were correct with the ACB situation last month.  Especially after the Merrick Garland fiasco.  

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Yeah I get that. 
 

it doesn’t change what I said. Please do explain. 

 

You seem to be stuck on a POV that each state should operate as a different election, rather than a national office holder being selected by national popular vote like every other democracy.  It's, like, a really simple concept.  

[bearrock]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Theres 59 other countries you’ll have to go look into to get that answer

 

the original statement is misleading. It’s not hard to understand. 
 

You want to get super nit picky on details but just use your hands to wave away the detail that we don’t actually have a national vote for the president. 
 

you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to defend a statement that is just completely disingenuous. I don’t get it. 

 

Okay, I feel like this is a little more hostility than what I deserve based on my posting history and my exchanges with you.  I mean you and I may disagree, but I've never thought of you as someone who debates in bad faith and I don't know what I've done to make you think that way of me.  

 

We don't have a national direct election for a president, but clearly our system bears no resemblance to a parliamentary system.  The  possible divergence between the EC winner and a popular vote winner seems like a peculiar aspect of the US system, but I genuinely don't know.  Other than US, I'm not sure where we see comparable results unless it's within the context of a parliamentary system.  But I'll admit that I don't know for sure.  Still, the allegation of disgenuity on my part seems a bit much.

 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Dude it has nothing to do with whether you support the EC or want it gone. 
 

they’ve put themselves in a position we’re likely nothing will change, there’s a small chance it will have the impact they want, and there’s a small chance (but I would say larger chance than the other) that I’ll have the exact opposite impact they want. 
 

im open to the idea I’m missing something. But as it currently stands this seems like a really dumb idea that, in the event it changes something, it seems to me most likely to nullify *their own votes* and no one else’s. 
 

you hate the EC and want it gone. I get it. This, as currently constructed, doesn’t accomplish that at all. 

 

The states who sign on to the compact are saying they would put the national vote total as the primary consideration, even if it goes against the result in their individual state.  It "nullifies" their own vote if they view the state outcome only as the primary consideration, but not so if they view the national vote total as the marker for who should win the election.

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Of course not. This is purely a “we didn’t win so we want to change the rules”

 

sort of like how many of these same people now want to expand scotus so they can change the fact that their guy didn’t get to appoint the justices when it was time. 

 

My response to this would be, what rules?  There is no rule that SCOTUS be 9 seat.  That is a norm, not a rule.  And if the GOP is going to **** on all of the norms to get their people on the court, then the Dems should not then be forced to abide by the norms either.  

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

You seem to be stuck on a POV that each state should operate as a different election, rather than a national office holder being selected by national popular vote like every other democracy.  It's, like, a really simple concept.  

Not like every other democracy. Already been shown. 60 of the 125 democracies of the world do not operate that way. I thought you had been following this stuff longer than me?

 

I'm not stuck on that view. I'm asking you to explain how what I described isn't the case. You haven't yet.

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

My response to this would be, what rules?  There is no rule that SCOTUS be 9 seat.  That is a norm, not a rule.  And if the GOP is going to **** on all of the norms to get their people on the court, then the Dems should not then be forced to abide by the norms either.  

the rules was towards the EC.

 

The scotus situation is just similar - we didn't get what we wanted cause we didn't win the thing we needed to to get what we wanted, therefore we think we should drastically change everything to make up for not getting what we want cause we didn't win the elections we needed to.

 

[Mr. Sinister]

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Okay, I feel like this is a little more hostility than what I deserve based on my posting history and my exchanges with you.  I mean you and I may disagree, but I've never thought of you as someone who debates in bad faith and I don't know what I've done to make you think that way of me.  

 

You and I must not read the same posts

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Not to get off topic here, but those same people sure as **** were correct with the ACB situation last month.  Especially after the Merrick Garland fiasco.  

 

No rules were broken.

 

I hate what the GOP did, but they got away with it because the rules allowed them to, the democrats didn't win enough (or the right) elections, and ultimately the GOP has no problem bucking up when they want while the dems usually tuck their tail and run.

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, Mr. Sinister said:

 

You and I must not read the same posts

 

Can't stop reading all your posts and not hear them in the voice of The Count from Sesame Street.  This one was particularly rewarding because there's The Count's laugh at the end of it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Has this been discussed?

 

Why doesn't each state split their EC votes based on the percentage of their state's popular vote? If a state has 10 EC votes and that state voted 60% Republican, 38% Democrat, and 2% something else...they could just split those EC votes to more accurately represent the state. 

 

That seems more fair to me than saying "7 more people in Virginia voted for Biden than Trump so Biden gets all 13 votes"

 

I'm sure smarter people have discussed and dismissed this, but it seems logical. 

[Cooked Crack]

5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Here's what I'm wondering:  If the EOC had historically favored Democrats and Democrats had won elections with it by NOT winning the popular vote like the GOP did in 2000 and 2016, are we having this conversation?

The conversation was being had in the 60s. I think Dems would begrudgingly support it because they tend to believe in more people voting. Probably not as loud though. The best thing would be if we could somehow get some  Republican electoral loses coupled with a popular vote win. Anything to speed up a constitutional amendment.

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

No rules were broken.

 

I hate what the GOP did, but they got away with it because the rules allowed them to, the democrats didn't win enough (or the right) elections, and ultimately the GOP has no problem bucking up when they want while the dems usually tuck their tail and run.

 

 

 

So if Dems decide not to tuck and run and instead pack the courts and scrap the EC, what would you say?

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not like every other democracy. Already been shown. 60 of the 125 democracies of the world do not operate that way. I thought you had been following this stuff longer than me?

 

The Pew article you pulled that come refers to "heads of state" which often includes a king or other monarch, not the democratically elected chief executive.

 

Quote

In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters. Thirty other democracies are classified as constitutional monarchies, and in the remaining 30, including the U.S., the head of state is indirectly elected. (We confined our analysis to the 125 nations designated as “electoral democracies” by Freedom House, a research institute that studies issues of democracy, political freedom and human rights.)

 

It specifically notes that the US is the only system with an electoral college system.  From a different article:

 

Quote

There is only one office in this country you can win without the popular support of most voters, and it happens to be the most powerful one in the world.

 

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not stuck on that view. I'm asking you to explain how what I described isn't the case. You haven't yet.

the rules was towards the EC.

 

The scotus situation is just similar - we didn't get what we wanted cause we didn't win the thing we needed to to get what we wanted, therefore we think we should drastically change everything to make up for not getting what we want cause we didn't win the elections we needed to.

 

 

I have, I think you just don't understand.  

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Okay, I feel like this is a little more hostility than what I deserve based on my posting history and my exchanges with you.  I mean you and I may disagree, but I've never thought of you as someone who debates in bad faith and I don't know what I've done to make you think that way of me.  

... there was no hostility in that. you're making that up. i stand by what i said. you want to say i'm comparing apples to oranges, then do the same thing yourself.

 

 

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

We don't have a national direct election for a president, but clearly our system bears no resemblance to a parliamentary system. 

Right... but we're a republic. and bear a resemblence of a republic. as do many of the other 59 countries that do not choose their president by a national election for president

(and we do not have a national election for president either)

 

 

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

The  possible divergence between the EC winner and a popular vote winner seems like a peculiar aspect of the US system, but I genuinely don't know.  Other than US, I'm not sure where we see comparable results unless it's within the context of a parliamentary system.  But I'll admit that I don't know for sure.  Still, the allegation of disgenuity on my part seems a bit much.

You didn't make the c laim. Someone else did. if you want to subscribe to it, then yeah you're subscribing to a disingenuous claim.

 

WE DO NOT HAVE A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.

 

Neither do those other countries

 

Adding our numbers up and saying "we're the only democracy that selects a present against it's national vote results" is disingenuous and misleading at best. i've already shown you why.

 

Go read about these countries yourself. They're republics. Parliaments. And they have similar systems.

They just don't have someone adding up all the states to create a "national popular vote", then claiming it's a real thing when it's not.

 

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

The states who sign on to the compact are saying they would put the national vote total as the primary consideration, even if it goes against the result in their individual state.  It "nullifies" their own vote if they view the state outcome only as the primary consideration, but not so if they view the national vote total as the marker for who should win the election.

 

Right. I understand what they're hoping for. What I'm saying is that without all the states, or at least enough of the right states (ie: heavily republican states), all they're doing is potentially sacrificing their (demo states) EC votes for no reward.

 

If the other states got on board it makes complete sense. Do you see the R states getting on board? I certainly don't. In which case there's a high proability of no change, a probability X of change that gets what they want, and a probability Y of change that goes against their best intersts.

And I'm saying it seems to me Y has a higher likelihood than X.

 

X is possible. I think nothing is most likely. I think Y is more likely than X. And without the right states on board it seems like the most l ikely outcome is that this hurts them, not helps them.

 

9 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

You and I must not read the same posts

 

PM me your craziness some more please, like last time, it's super entertaining

 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right. I understand what they're hoping for. What I'm saying is that without all the states, or at least enough of the right states (ie: heavily republican states), all they're doing is potentially sacrificing their (demo states) EC votes for no reward.

 

If the other states got on board it makes complete sense. Do you see the R states getting on board? I certainly don't. In which case there's a high proability of no change, a probability X of change that gets what they want, and a probability Y of change that goes against their best intersts.

And I'm saying it seems to me Y has a higher likelihood than X.

 

X is possible. I think nothing is most likely. I think Y is more likely than X. And without the right states on board it seems like the most l ikely outcome is that this hurts them, not helps them.

 

 

The compact only takes effect once enough states to make up 270 EC signs on.  Until then, the electors are still chosen in the current ways in those states

Edited November 19, 2020 by bearrock

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It specifically notes that the US is the only system with an electoral college system.  From a different article:

60 of them are labeled as democracties and do not use a popular vote that chooses their head of state

 

of those, 30 are not constitutional monarchies and their head of state is not chosen by popular vote.

 

Saying we're the only world's democracy that does not choose its head of state by popular vote is wrong/incorrect/misleading/etc.

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[Mr. Sinister]

I mean... that post really was extra. I think you have a hard time with the tone of your posts vs how you perceive the tone of others. 

 

I've suspected that for awhile now.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Mr. Sinister

[PleaseBlitz]

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

You seem to be stuck on a POV that each state should operate as a different election, rather than a national office holder being selected by national popular vote like every other democracy.  It's, like, a really simple concept.  

 

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not stuck on that view.

 

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

WE DO NOT HAVE A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

@PleaseBlitz

Saying we do not currently have a national vote system for president

is not the same as saying

we should not have a national vote system for president

 

Currently, states run their own elections. They are state elections.

 

I'm not saying you can't do it the other way. Or shouldn't. I haven't even considered that (I don't think you have to consider that to consider whether popular vote should replace EC, you can have states run their own elections and then make popular vote a real, formal thing, without making the national, federally run elections)

 

(in fact I would assume that if we did switch to popular vote, we would still leave them as state elections, because the logistics probably just make that way easier than rolling out a new system governed at the federal level)

 

My point is that people are conflating terms and making statements that aren't actually true in the context within they're meant to be used.

 

This literally started with me saying that this statement is disingenuous: The USA is the only democracy where its popular vote for president doesn't matter

(Paraphrasing the general ways that statement is made)

It may *technically* be true if we analyze all 59 other countries where their head of state is not chosen by popular vote, and we find that people don't cast votes at any level.

 

But even then, it would be technically true, but the context in which it's being used becomes completely disingenuous.

 

There are 125 countries considered democracies. 60 of them do not choose their president by popular vote. There are some with electoral college systems, some with other systems. Many of them do not have a popular vote to even compare with. And we don't have an official popular vote either.

 

None of this has anything to do with whether you guys are right that we should get rid of the EC. None of it. It doesn't hurt your stance at all.

 

It's just a disingenuous statement and it's likely done on purpose, and it works because people wont dig into it.

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I mean... that post really was extra. I think you have a hard time with the tone of your posts showing you perceive the tone of others. 

 

I've suspected that for awhile now.

i love debating with @PleaseBlitz and @bearrock

i also love reading their posts. i learn a lot from them.

no hostility was meant towards either. debates are fun. i greatly respect both of them cause they seem like really smart people. like i said i learn a lot from them, and i appreciate people like that. a lot.

 

you, on the other hand, take to PM'ing me crazy stuff . 🤣

 

[Mr. Sinister]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

i love debating with @PleaseBlitz and @bearrock

i also love reading their posts. i learn a lot from them.

no hostility was meant towards either. debates are fun. i greatly respect both of them cause they seem like really smart people. like i said i learn a lot from them, and i appreciate people like that. a lot.

 

you, on the other hand, take to PM'ing me crazy stuff . 🤣

 

 

Like what?

 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

The compact only takes effect once enough states to make up 270 EC signs on.  Until then, the electors are still chosen in the current ways in those states

i get that.

maybe my understanding of all the various ways we can get to 270 is bad, but what keeps sticking out to me is that there's a way to get to 270 w/o the red states really getting on board, and in that case what I suggest seems likely to me.

 

i definitely get how if you had all, or even almost all, states on board it works out (although it'll produce super lopsided EC vote totals, but that doesn't matter it'd just be a formality at that point)

 

it seems to me like the blue states that are creating a pact to try to enforce a popular vote without changing it via the constitution (as you've all explained), but that if they do it by themselves with no real involvement from the red states, that they're really doing not much of anything without potentially only disenfranchising themselves

 

I have a hard time seeing a republican winning the popular vote in the near future given how things have gone for so long recently, so the whole argument is likely moot, but it's still something I think exists and is part of it (without R states joining the pact)

[tshile]

@bearrock

and back to my original comment on it, that i'd be pissed if that was my state:

 

yeah, i'd be pissed if my state's popular vote was gone against by the states electors due to a pact that helped the guy a bunch of R states wanted anyways, when I know that if the table was turned they wouldn't do the same for me.

 

I'm not really for the popular vote at all, but if that's what we all did then that's what we all did. I would not prefer it, but I wouldn't be pissed.

 

being forced to play by a difference set of rules like that? that would make me angry. if they wont overturn theirs, why should we overturn ours?