Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

@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?

 

 

I guess I'm not seeing when this hypothetical creates a problem.  The compact would be dormant until 270 EC states sign on.  So if the compact operates to flip a state's electors against that state's current system, it would only be to align with other compact states to pick a president based on the popular vote.  It wouldn't matter that states comprising 268 EC won't play by the popular vote rules, cause the president elect would still be determined by popular vote.

[Mr. Sinister]

 Alright tshile, , I'll  tell you what, since you won't answer. You added a laugh emoji to my post about Trump being an illegitimate President.

 

You disagreed with it. That's fine. But clearly you and I have some kind of weird history with each other, illustrated by your "Your post? Got a problem? Do something about it?" Highly incendiary comment , when I asked you what was so funny. So, just in case you thought you were (again), some kind of victim, your failure in communication and escalation is what led to that exchange, and your lying about the reason why (and ensuing dumbass remarks about my mental state).

 

I post exactly as if I'm talking to a real person. So that kind of challenge just does not sit well with any human being, especially coming from someone like you, who seems to fashion themself as some sort of Internet Avenger, who makes incredibly defensive posts and pretends like nothing happened (evidenced by above), then whines when someone does it back to you.

 

The PM was me getting you to admit that. But no, just more lies and more sad  insecurity, and more weird accusations about me apparently treating people badly (which I can assure you, unless you can provide actual  evidence, which you did not, I can assure you is only in your sad little head) and more shots about my mental state, in which I finally  just told you to go **** yourself. Which you probably still need to do. It would help you out so much.

 

Trash posts get trash treatment. Other than that, I'm the nicest guy you'll ever find. But I know you dont believe that, because you act like you see monsters and bad guys everywhere. But I promise you, it's the truth. I dislike you less than you weirdly seem to dislike me.

 

But frankly, I'm done convincing you. You are an incredibly sad person (something you tried to hilariously project on me) and you really should take a chill pill. Good luck finding one 👍

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

your failure in communication and escalation is what led to that exchange

I posted immediately what my intention was and what it meant

 

you refused to believe it.

 

and then PM'd me about it because you refuse to believe it. you still refuse to believe it. i explained it. you wont accept it. so you started PMing me about how you think I'm slick and all this other nonsense.

 

I don't have these problems with anyone else here. I can't think of a single person that actively posts here that I go through this nonsense with, other than you. The two people in the post above in question, both liked the post, because we've had such a long history of debating and conversing with each other that they know i'm being genuine when i say that stuff.

 

I think there's something wrong with you. You follow me around and make comments constantly. I quit responding to you after you PM'd me (until this exchange. i honestly don't think i've responded to any of your sillyness since then, not once. may be wrong...) because I genuinely think there's something going on there, and generally speaking it's silly to continue to interact with that type of person on the internet. i told you that if you really had a problem with me then put me on ignore. I stand by that. I don't have problems ignoring you without doing it, but you obviously have a problem with ignoring me. Cause you clearly can't help yourself 🤣

 

even try the beal and I enjoy each other. he rips on me constantly. but he's smart and generally a good due. and not once has he taken it to a weird level. it's quite literally just you.

 

i don't know man but it's unhealthy. find someone else to play your stupid games, cause i'm gonna call you out every time. and you clearly can't handle it.

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[Mr. Sinister]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

I posted immediately what my intention was and what it meant

 

you refused to believe it.

 

and then PM'd me about it because you refuse to believe it. you still refuse to believe it. i explained it. you wont accept it. so you started PMing me about how you think I'm slick and all this other nonsense.

 

I don't have these problems with anyone else here. I can't think of a single person that actively posts here that I go through this nonsense with, other than you. The two people in the post above in question, both liked the post, because we've had such a long history of debating and conversing with each other that they know i'm being genuine when i say that stuff.

 

I think there's something wrong with you. You follow me around and make comments constantly. I quit responding to you after you PM'd me because I genuinelly think there's something going on there, and generally speaking it's silly to continue to interact with that type of person on the internet. i told you that if you really had a problem with me then put me on ignore. I stand by that. I don't have problems ignoring you without doing it, but you obviously have a problem with ignoring me. Cause you clearly can't help yourself 🤣

 

even try the beal and I enjoy each other. he rips of my constantly. but he's smart and generally a good due. and not once has he taken it to a weird level. it's quite literally just you.

 

i don't know man but it's unhealthy. find someone else to play your stupid games, cause i'm gonna call you out every time. and you clearly can't handle it.

 

Lol. Ok Captain America. Any time you feel like crying about something else, you know where to find me. 

 

Sight your "Guns" and **** 😂. I really feel bad for you.

 

Telling someone to "Do something about it" when they ask you want you find funny, is quite literally "Taking it to a weird level"

 

But I get it, you see monsters everywhere.  Cowards usually do

Edited November 19, 2020 by Mr. Sinister

[tshile]

44 minutes ago, bearrock said:

So if the compact operates to flip a state's electors against that state's current system, it would only be to align with other compact states to pick a president based on the popular vote

OK.... i think this was the key piece of information I was missing.

 

So it's not just once enough states sign up that the total electoral votes among them is 270 or greater

it also only happens to reflect what's going on within those states (as opposed to the country as a whole)

 

So the idea that non-pact states could total up to a greater popular vote, and force pact states to flip, when non-pact states would never flip in return, isn't possible>?

 

If that's the case then it's not stupid. I get it now. That was quite literally my only issue with it. I kept saying it seems like I'm missing something. That sounds like it...

(I realize it’s no ones fault but my own if I don’t understand something, but to be fair I kept saying I feel like I missing something because otherwise it sounds like a stupid idea, and this is what I was missing)

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

But I get it

It cracks me up how obvious it is that you just can’t let this go

 

Bro 

 

let it go

 

[Mr. Sinister]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

It cracks me up how obvious it is that you just can’t let this go

 

Bro 

 

let it go

 

 

Is it more or less hilarious than your victim complex? Btw what e exactly have you "Called" me out on? I'll wait. Usually it's just me laughing at your weird spaz posts.

 

And let go like you "Let go" of whatever I said to you that was so horrible (that you still have yet to bring up because you are full of ****), but accuse me of following you around (you're not special, it's called a message board. Threads are started. People post in them.  Novel idea, I know). 

 

You have some strange   childhood issue that weighs you down considerably.  And instead of getting help with it, you parade around here with your laugh emojis and weird ass defensive posts, then whine like a bit h when people have had enough.

 

You. Are. Pathetic. 

 

And yes, you are a liar. You are a coward. You are a punk. You are a fraud. You are a **** who cant own up to his actions as a grown man. Not even on the internet.  It's a travesty.

 

I would say be better, but I'm not sure a **** like you is capable of it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

You got any other lying ass **** to say?

 

Guess not. #RunBoyRun

Edited November 19, 2020 by Mr. Sinister

[TK]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Is it more or less hilarious than your victim complex? Btw what e exactly have you "Called" me out on? I'll wait. Usually it's just me laughing at your weird spaz posts.

 

And let go like you "Let go" of whatever I said to you that was so horrible (that you still have yet to bring up because you are full of ****), but accuse me of following you around (you're not special, it's called a message board. Threads are started. People post in them.  Novel idea, I know). 

 

You have some strange   childhood issue that weighs you down considerably.  And instead of getting help with it, you parade around here with your laugh emojis and weird ass defensive posts, then whine like a bit h when people have had enough.

 

You. Are. Pathetic. 

 

And yes, you are a liar. You are a coward. You are a punk. You are a fraud. You are a **** who cant own up to his actions as a grown man. Not even on the internet.  It's a travesty.

 

I would say be better, but I'm not sure a **** like you is capable of it.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all...

Quote

6. Do not attempt to circumvent the profanity filters.
Type in your word and let the filters do their job of substituting asterisks for letters. Then check your post to see if all profanity was filtered. Veiled or "subtle" attempts at using profanity are unacceptable. We allow the use of either all asterisks/symbols or none at all. For example "****" and "*&*%$" are acceptable, while “s**t” or “sh*t" are not.

Members quoting profanity filter violations (or other rule violations) without editing the violation out of the quote are simply creating another violation of this Rule and may be penalized accordingly.

And secondly, ENOUGH. Quit derailing the thread & either take it back to a respectful PM or even better, just drop it.

 

Thanks in advance.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

Electoral college stays trash

[LadySkinsFan]

It was pablum for the slave states. Since we don't have slave states anymore, regardless of how certain white people still believe that Black people aren't human and treat them as such instead of actual human beings, the EC is superfluous and unnecessary. Every either electoral position is decided by popular vote, so too should be President and Vice President. One person one vote. 

 

And we should have more stringent criminal laws against voter suppression and voter intimidation as felonies with prison terms and permanent loss of voting rights. Those seeking to keep people from exercising their franchise should themselves lose their franchise permanently. Give these laws some teeth.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by LadySkinsFan

[TheGreatBuzz]

22 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

It was pablum for the slave states.

 

The reason for something being done originally does not necessarily make it wrong now.  Getting rid of the EC would give rural voters no voice for POTUS.  If Biden had run on that, he would have likely lost my vote.  I would have possibly considered voting for him anyways only because I know there is no chance of it actually happening.  

 

In fact, I’d say the likelihood of it happening is so low, discussing it is pretty much pointless.  We may as well debate harvesting the moon for cheese.

[LadySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

The reason for something being done originally does not necessarily make it wrong now.  Getting rid of the EC would give rural voters no voice for POTUS.  If Biden had run on that, he would have likely lost my vote.  I would have possibly considered voting for him anyways only because I know there is no chance of it actually happening.  

 

In fact, I’d say the likelihood of it happening is so low, discussing it is pretty much pointless.  We may as well debate harvesting the moon for cheese.

 

It is wrong now, and there are effects to start getting rid of it or mitigating it's deleterious effects. When presidential and vice presidential candidates are selected by minority votes, it's unAmerican. One person one vote and we should be doing everything to encourage people to vote. It's our civic responsibility for living here. 

 

In fact, I think that the Lincoln Project should split off from the Republicans and form the Lincoln Party. They'd be a minority party for sure, they should be picky about who they let in. The Republicans would die a natural death. Democrats and Lincolns could effectively govern in a bipartisan manner to the benefit of We the People and our country. And they need to abandon trickle down economics and acknowledge that it's wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

[TheGreatBuzz]

19 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

it's unAmerican.

Considering it has been around since our founding, I’d argue it is very American.

 

20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

we should be doing everything to encourage people to vote

No argument here.

 

20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

When presidential and vice presidential candidates are selected by minority votes, 

They aren’t.  The winner must get at least 270 of a possible 538 votes.

 

23 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

In fact, I think that the Lincoln Project should split off from the Republicans and form the Lincoln Party. They'd be a minority party for sure, they should be picky about who they let in. The Republicans would die a natural death. Democrats and Lincolns could effectively govern in a bipartisan manner to the benefit of We the People and our country. And they need to abandon trickle down economics and acknowledge that it's wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

This could probably go in several different threads but I don’t think this thread is the best fit so I won’t debate it here.

[Hersh]

11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

The reason for something being done originally does not necessarily make it wrong now.  Getting rid of the EC would give rural voters no voice for POTUS.  

 

10 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

They aren’t.  The winner must get at least 270 of a possible 538 votes.

why would rural voters not have a voice?
 

You are effectively arguing for minority rule which would mean the end of democracy itself. Why should a party getting millions less in votes run the country and set policy?

[TheGreatBuzz]

33 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

why would rural voters not have a voice?
 

You are effectively arguing for minority rule which would mean the end of democracy itself. Why should a party getting millions less in votes run the country and set policy?

It is not minority rule.  It is just giving them a strong enough voice that they must at least be considered.  For a deeper explanation, read the thread.  It has been discussed.

[The Evil Genius]

1 vote in inner city NYC should count the same as 1 vote in podunk rural Idaho.

 

Under the EC, it doesn't. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Anything giving advantage to slave holding philosophy needs to be gone. We fought a war on this very issue and the slave holding philosophy lost. It's beyond time that we cast out all remnants of it. This includes changing Confederate soldier names of our military installations and the Electoral College.

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

It is not minority rule.  It is just giving them a strong enough voice that they must at least be considered.  For a deeper explanation, read the thread.  It has been discussed.

dude, there is a lot of minority rule in this country. Wisconsin is one place. The US Senate. The last four years of Trump. It’s all anti-Democracy. 
 

also, you didn’t answer how rural voters wouldn’t have a voice in choosing a President. Not really sure why their vote should count more than mine. 
 

also, I’m tired of this nonsense narrative that somehow Democrats pay no attention to rural areas. Democrats have pushed policies that would benefit rural areas. So what exactly do rural people want that there vote should be weighted more than others? 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Hersh

[GhostofSparta]

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Getting rid of the EC would give rural voters no voice for POTUS. 

You're making the false assumption that "rural voters" are a monolith who all vote the same way. Right now rural Democrats in Idaho are just as devalued as rural Republicans in Maryland. And the EC does nothing to help either party, because under our current system in both cases those votes are already known to count for nothing before any votes have even been cast.

 

Right now, the election only matters in about 6-7 "Swing States." Places like PA, OH, WI, FL, and recently GA and AZ. You may think the EC helps places like ND, SD, MT, WY, but does it? Outside of maybe the primaries, does either candidate spend any time in those states? Even in a close election, do you think the R's or D's are sweating the 3 electoral votes of DC, or VT, or WY? No, they only give a **** about those 4=5 large chunk swing states. Right now Republicans in CA and Democrats in OK really have no voice for POTUS. And both candidates know that, so outside of maybe some stumping for local rallies or fundraising with their already committed base, there's no reason for any candidate to spend any time in or give any attention to 40 out of 50 states.

 

And while I understand the semantics argument involved in "minority rule" under our current system, it's amazingly stupid that somebody like Trump, who lost the popular vote by over 7 million with ~155 million votes cast (81 million to 74 million), only actually lost re-election by less than 100,000 votes in a few key states. Seriously, Biden at 306 EC votes only won AZ, GA, WI, and one of NE's districts by about 65,000 combined votes. If those votes go the other way, then even PA and GA don't give Biden a win. That's how close Trump, who again, lost by 7 million votes, was to winning the EC. To say "He got 270 EC, so it's not minority rule" may be true in the specific sense of the EC (and I get it, that's the rules we play by, so that's what he has to do), it vastly ignores (and therefore severely devalues) all those wasted votes in states where the outcome was assured from the beginning.

 

Those small states already have a massive say in the Senate, where the least populous state (WY) has the exact same number of senators as the most populous state (CA). It's also even true in the House, where CA's ~40 million people have 53 Reps (roughly 1 rep for every 750,000 people) an Wyoming has 1 rep for its roughly 560,000 people.

 

So saying that we "need" the EC to keep rural and less populated states from being ignored is only true if you ignore all of congress. I'm tired of people complaining that "Popular vote would mean NYC, LA, and Chicago would elect the President!" without acknowledging that's only true because...well...that's where PEOPLE live. And vote. I'm not saying we should ignore the 8 farming families that comprise Nebraska's population, but maybe they shouldn't be able to override an entire city just because nobody else wants to live where they do.

[Larry]

13 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Getting rid of the EC would give rural voters no voice for POTUS.

 

Horse poopy.  

 

It would give them a voice which is exactly proportional to their population.  

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

57 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Wisconsin is one place.

I don’t believe I eAre you referring to gerrymandering?  If so, I’m on board with fixing that.  I’d like to see some kids at MIT or something come up with a program to draw districts without bias.  But I don’t think either party actually wants to get rid of it.  They just want it to be more in their favor.

 

59 minutes ago, Hersh said:

also, you didn’t answer how rural voters wouldn’t have a voice in choosing a President. Not really sure why their vote should count more than mine.

I know.  I didn’t because that discussion has already been beaten to death.  I don’t see how having it over again will change anything.  If new points of discussion are brought up then I’m cool with talking about those.  

 

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

I’m tired of this nonsense narrative that somehow Democrats pay no attention to rural areas.

I don’t believe I ever mentioned a particular party.

 

53 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

You're making the false assumption that "rural voters" are a monolith who all vote the same way. 

I never said that.  And I know not all city dwellers vote the same either.

 

54 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

it's amazingly stupid that somebody like Trump

It is amazingly stupid that somebody like Trump got even one vote.  We have bigger issues to worry about than the EC.

 

56 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

So saying that we "need" the EC to keep rural and less populated states from being ignored is only true if you ignore all of congress.

Congress is actually a good set up if it were to work as designed.  It is a balance of population size and weighted representation.  If they could actually work together, it’d be great.  But the population instead elects soulless idiots.

 

I would actually be willing to consider getting rid of the EC if Presidential powers were greatly curtailed and Congress had more power (with the caveat that we would need to put in politicians that actual want to govern).  I also supported the idea of the EC putting Hillary in as POTUS.  The EC sometimes needs to protect us from ourselves.  But this would also require the people in power to actually care about what is best for the country.  And I think we all know that is about as likely as getting rid of the EC.  Neither is going to happen which really means this discussion is pointless.  We have far greater concerns in this country at the moment.  I’m going to go back to worrying about those. 

[Jabbyrwock]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 I’d like to see some kids at MIT or something come up with a program to draw districts without bias.  But I don’t think either party actually wants to get rid of it.  They just want it to be more in their favor.

 

Oh boy...better get your diving gear bub, this goes deeper than it seems on the surface:

 

https://mggg.org/

[stoshuaj]

Good discussion, please continue.

 

I’ve always been, and still am, for the EC but certainly open (I think) to the conversation.  However, I know am not well versed enough to argue either way.

Edited January 3, 2021 by stoshuaj

[Mooka]

Still trying to figure out how to run a fair election in this country.

 

The EC worked for about a century but hasn't worked for the last 20-40 years maybe. 

 

If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Need a new system.

 

One thing i enjoy is studying how we've run elections in this country from the beginning. Makes you feel more optimistic about the current political climate. 

 

Plenty of examples of a better system, whether they're runoffs or a tiered choice.

 

There's nothing American or Constitutional about the EC other then its subject to change.