Abolish the Electoral College?

[Kelinfort]

Trump wins Nevada, and becomes the next president

Good joke

[Gages Icelandic Army]

We must abolish existence itself! In more serious words we need to do everything we can elect more liberals.

I would be cautious about that. That's flying mighty close to the Republicans Libraugh or Buckley rule. Liberals are not always better than conservatives. And this is coming from a pretty liberal guy.

[The Liberated Territories]

We must abolish existence itself! In more serious words we need to do everything we can elect more liberals.

That's too nihilistic for my taste.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Of course, why is this still a question? Currently is theoretically possible to win with 12 votes(One vote cast in the most populous states), it is nearly impossible, but any system that allows this to happen should be abolished.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Again, you're missing the point. You're answering this question:

Why do Swing States matter more under the Electoral College system?


I'm asking this question:

Since the Electoral College no longer protects small states, but rather it protects swing states, why do we still need it?

Because it protects small states.

Just because swing states are swing states doesn't mean it doesn't give the rest of the states a proportional voice in regards to the big states like Texas and California.

The "swing state" phenomenon is only relevant in so far as people not understanding what a "swing state" is.

That's why I am hoping Texas becomes purple instead of solid blue. It'd be a contested state and it'd be relevant for campaigning. California will never be relevant even if you switch to popular vote because you will always count on a majority of people being Democrats anyways, so they would still campaign on states in which polls don't favor either candidate and not in states like California and Texas who will lean in one particular way and it's safe to assume that anyways.

[Shofercia]

Maybe. If Cruz, Kasich's, and Rubio's delegates lined up behind one of them on the floor, however, Trump would have been defeated. You could even do a compromise ticket - Rubio/Kasich or Cruz/Rubio *shudder*.

But that didn't happen, and he still won by a plurality of the vote.

So what does that tell us about the average voter?

That over 50% of the average Republican voters didn't vote for Trump.

Maybe. If Cruz, Kasich's, and Rubio's delegates lined up behind one of them on the floor, however, Trump would have been defeated. You could even do a compromise ticket - Rubio/Kasich or Cruz/Rubio *shudder*.

Kasich/Cruz 2016!
I might almost vote for that ticket.

Cruz? Seriously?

Trump won 25% of the Republican vote. He was nominated, because the RNC fucked up. The toyed around with backing Jeb Bush. Yep, the same Bush, whose campaign slogan was "JEB!" to prevent people from realizing he was a Bush. With an exclamation mark. The party establishment threw most of the funds behind him. Despite the funds in Iowa, Bush got all of 3% of the vote and 11% in New Hampshire. Did Republicans back off Bush? Nope, he still led in fundraising. Rand Paul, who got 5% of the vote in Iowa, had to drop out after a devastating defeat in New Hampshire, partly due to lack of funds.

Bush dropped out after being creamed in South Carolina. Being creamed was also the theme song of his campaign. After the loss of Bush, the establishment shifted to Rubio without any analysis. Maybe they thought they were playing Marco-Polo. On Super Tuesday, Cruz/Rubio/Kasich had more votes than Trump/Carson. But the Republicans failed to build a coalition between Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich. In fact, Cruz backstabbed Rubio in Florida, delivering that state to Trump.

Trump lost the second Super Tuesday by over a million votes, but because the Republicans couldn't reign in Cruz, Rubio and Kasich got hammered. After Rubio gave up, the support shifted to Cruz. By that point, it was over though, the establishment was just trying to salvage something. But Cruz is an unelectable dick. What if the establishment supported Paul or Rubio from the beginning?

If the Electoral College is gone, Republicans would be forced to modify their nomination system, promoting the popular vote. They'd also be a lot more picky than just going "hey, Bush, you're a good old boy, we'll support ya!"

What if I won the lottery tomorrow?

That doesn't really change the fact that the party had no cohesion whatsoever and we're stuck with an orange menace now.

It was party cohesion that made Trump win, not the system that was implemented. You yourself admitted that if Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio would have created a successful coalition, they could have stopped Trump. So the system had nothing to do with it. The system worked as it was supposed to work, and they pretty much got hammered because they were idiots.

That's the problem with first past the post. If the delegates were proportionally allocated, Trump wouldn't have gotten the nomination.

Trump won 25% of the Republican vote. He was nominated, because the RNC fucked up. The toyed around with backing Jeb Bush. Yep, the same Bush, whose campaign slogan was "JEB!" to prevent people from realizing he was a Bush. With an exclamation mark. The party establishment threw most of the funds behind him. Despite the funds in Iowa, Bush got all of 3% of the vote and 11% in New Hampshire. Did Republicans back off Bush? Nope, he still led in fundraising. Rand Paul, who got 5% of the vote in Iowa, had to drop out after a devastating defeat in New Hampshire, partly due to lack of funds.

Bush dropped out after being creamed in South Carolina. Being creamed was also the theme song of his campaign. After the loss of Bush, the establishment shifted to Rubio without any analysis. Maybe they thought they were playing Marco-Polo. On Super Tuesday, Cruz/Rubio/Kasich had more votes than Trump/Carson. But the Republicans failed to build a coalition between Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich. In fact, Cruz backstabbed Rubio in Florida, delivering that state to Trump.

Trump lost the second Super Tuesday by over a million votes, but because the Republicans couldn't reign in Cruz, Rubio and Kasich got hammered. After Rubio gave up, the support shifted to Cruz. By that point, it was over though, the establishment was just trying to salvage something. But Cruz is an unelectable dick. What if the establishment supported Paul or Rubio from the beginning?

If the Electoral College is gone, Republicans would be forced to modify their nomination system, promoting the popular vote. They'd also be a lot more picky than just going "hey, Bush, you're a good old boy, we'll support ya!"

What?
Trump didn't win a majority, no, but you're off by about 19 points if we can trust Wikipedia. He had 14,015,993 votes or 44.95% of the total.
Make of that what you will.
His delegate count was completely off, though, handing him a guaranteed win where he shouldn't have got any if we were doing it proportionately.

Sorry, typo on my part. Fixed it! I meant to say 45%.

[Genivaria]

Texas representatives represent me in the Senate, but for the Presidential election only I represent me.
That's how it should be.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Again, you're missing the point. You're answering this question:

Why do Swing States matter more under the Electoral College system?


I'm asking this question:

Since the Electoral College no longer protects small states, but rather it protects swing states, why do we still need it?

Because it protects small states.

Just because swing states are swing states doesn't mean it doesn't give the rest of the states a proportional voice in regards to the big states like Texas and California.

The "swing state" phenomenon is only relevant in so far as people not understanding what a "swing state" is.

That's why I am hoping Texas becomes purple instead of solid blue. It'd be a contested state and it'd be relevant for campaigning. California will never be relevant even if you switch to popular vote because you will always count on a majority of people being Democrats anyways.

It really doesn't.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

[Impaled Nazarene]

We must abolish existence itself! In more serious words we need to do everything we can elect more liberals.

That's too nihilistic for my taste.

Eh, that's more misanthropic than nihilistic.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

But that didn't happen, and he still won by a plurality of the vote.

So what does that tell us about the average voter?

That over 50% of the average Republican voters didn't vote for Trump.

Kasich/Cruz 2016!
I might almost vote for that ticket.

Cruz? Seriously?

What if I won the lottery tomorrow?

That doesn't really change the fact that the party had no cohesion whatsoever and we're stuck with an orange menace now.

It was party cohesion that made Trump win, not the system that was implemented. You yourself admitted that if Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio would have created a successful coalition, they could have stopped Trump. So the system had nothing to do with it. The system worked as it was supposed to work, and they pretty much got hammered because they were idiots.

That's the problem with first past the post. If the delegates were proportionally allocated, Trump wouldn't have gotten the nomination.

What?
Trump didn't win a majority, no, but you're off by about 19 points if we can trust Wikipedia. He had 14,015,993 votes or 44.95% of the total.
Make of that what you will.
His delegate count was completely off, though, handing him a guaranteed win where he shouldn't have got any if we were doing it proportionately.

Sorry, type on my part. Fixed it! I meant to say 45%.

Well, I'd be more tribally inclined to vote Kasich. Then again, he did cut funding to special needs here and his glorious "economic recovery" probably comprised WalMart getting more jobs in the 'burbs.
But I'd still probably be with the pro-Hilldog Super PAC I volunteered for, so technically I'd be a Clinton voter.

[Shofercia]

Again, you're missing the point. You're answering this question:

Why do Swing States matter more under the Electoral College system?


I'm asking this question:

Since the Electoral College no longer protects small states, but rather it protects swing states, why do we still need it?

Because it protects small states.

Just because swing states are swing states doesn't mean it doesn't give the rest of the states a proportional voice in regards to the big states like Texas and California.

The "swing state" phenomenon is only relevant in so far as people not understanding what a "swing state" is.

That's why I am hoping Texas becomes purple instead of solid blue. It'd be a contested state and it'd be relevant for campaigning. California will never be relevant even if you switch to popular vote because you will always count on a majority of people being Democrats anyways, so they would still campaign on states in which polls don't favor either candidate and not in states like California and Texas who will lean in one particular way and it's safe to assume that anyways.

But it doesn't protect small states. Nine of the smallest states are not protected. 14/15 smallest states are not protected by it. If I'm running for president, do I care what Wyoming wants? Nope. Do I care about the Dakotas? Nope. So that's the thing, it doesn't protect small states. It protects swing states.

[The Westenian Union]

YES! I urge everyone to watch CGP Grey's video regarding this topic. The Electoral College was a good system in the 1700's and 1800's, but it has no purpose in a 21st century America.

[Giovenith]

Yes. It's absolutely inexcusable that any system claiming to be democratic allows a way for the democratic process to be fucked off because of the personal desires of a few.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because it protects small states.

Just because swing states are swing states doesn't mean it doesn't give the rest of the states a proportional voice in regards to the big states like Texas and California.

The "swing state" phenomenon is only relevant in so far as people not understanding what a "swing state" is.

That's why I am hoping Texas becomes purple instead of solid blue. It'd be a contested state and it'd be relevant for campaigning. California will never be relevant even if you switch to popular vote because you will always count on a majority of people being Democrats anyways, so they would still campaign on states in which polls don't favor either candidate and not in states like California and Texas who will lean in one particular way and it's safe to assume that anyways.

But it doesn't protect small states. Nine of the smallest states are not protected. 14/15 smallest states are not protected by it. If I'm running for president, do I care what Wyoming wants? Nope. Do I care about the Dakotas? Nope. So that's the thing, it doesn't protect small states. It protects swing states.

And why would you care about the Dakotas and Wyoming or the other small states if they are "safe" bets you will win them? In other words, why would you spend money on a state that is going to back your party even if your presidential candidate kills a monkey at a zoo anyways?

The problem with current election trends is not the electoral college. Is the fact that state by state breakdowns show an overwhelmingly issue with electoral trends, which is that people will always be partisan, and states which are heavily partisan are "safe bets". So you are not really solving anything anyways by switching to a popular vote system. You're just ensuring we will pay more attention to the votes to see which states are "swinging" more and politicians go and spend more money on those states.

Again, Texas and California still wouldn't be relevant under your system because they are partisan. Swing states only matter because they aren't safe bets. If a state was a safe bet under a popular vote system it would make fuck all sense to spend money there. So you're still stuck with your problem regardless of the system, in other words abolishing one system for another doesn't solve the issue of partisanship. Which is one of the problems, and perhaps the main problem, you have with the system as it stands, that they don't spend enough money on certain states for campaigning whereas they focus their attention in others. That's partisan politics, not a flaw of the electoral system.

So the main question is "how do you make people in a certain state not be partisan?" and not "why are swing states more powerful than non-swing states and our presidential candidates pander to them more?"; well they pander to these states more because they're not "safe" states. There are no partisan politics going on in those states to the point where people are a majority of a single party.

[Giovenith]

that is going to back your party even if your presidential candidate kills a monkey at a zoo anyways?

Hey, I challenge you to find a better way to demonstrate our dominance to Russia.

[Ebliania]

Yes. It's absolutely inexcusable that any system claiming to be democratic allows a way for the democratic process to be fucked off because of the personal desires of a few.

No! I want to be privileged!

[Turkducken]

Yes it should be.

[Shofercia]

But it doesn't protect small states. Nine of the smallest states are not protected. 14/15 smallest states are not protected by it. If I'm running for president, do I care what Wyoming wants? Nope. Do I care about the Dakotas? Nope. So that's the thing, it doesn't protect small states. It protects swing states.

And why would you care about the Dakotas and Wyoming or the other small states if they are "safe" bets you will win them? In other words, why would you spend money on a state that is going to back your party even if your presidential candidate kills a monkey at a zoo anyways?

The problem with current election trends is not the electoral college. Is the fact that state by state breakdowns show an overwhelmingly issue with electoral trends, which is that people will always be partisan, and states which are heavily partisan are "safe bets". So you are not really solving anything anyways by switching to a popular vote system. You're just ensuring we will pay more attention to the votes to see which states are "swinging" more and politicians go and spend more money on those states.

Again, Texas and California still wouldn't be relevant under your system because they are partisan. Swing states only matter because they aren't safe bets. If a state was a safe bet under a popular vote system it would make fuck all sense to spend money there. So you're still stuck with your problem regardless of the system, in other words abolishing one system for another doesn't solve the issue of partisanship. Which is one of the problems, and perhaps the main problem, you have with the system as it stands, that they don't spend enough money on certain states for campaigning whereas they focus their attention in others. That's partisan politics, not a flaw of the electoral system.

You claimed that the Electoral College protects small states. I pointed out that the Electoral College is not beneficial for 14 out of the 15 smallest states. Under direct presidential election, all states would matter. More importantly, all votes would matter. Additionally, it'd be easier to elect a candidate who's neither a Democrat, nor a Republican if we allow a run off election between the top two candidates.

[Sancturia]

Why does the Electoral College exist? What is it there for? By common sense the person with the most votes should win. I mean, if the majority or more than half of the population voted for a particular candidate than that person wins.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You claimed that the Electoral College protects small states. I pointed out that the Electoral College is not beneficial for 14 out of the 15 smallest states. Under direct presidential election, all states would matter. More importantly, all votes would matter. Additionally, it'd be easier to elect a candidate who's neither a Democrat, nor a Republican if we allow a run off election between the top two candidates.

Under direct presidential election all states still would not matter.

Like I pointed out to you, if a majority of people in a certain state is going to vote for you anyways, there's no point in going to those states and campaign down there, in particular if they are heavily partisan like Texas and California. The point that if we abolish the electoral college states like Texas and California -- two heavily partisan states -- would matter more is a complete fabrication. It wouldn't happen.

And you would still not help the smallest states. In fact, you would not find anything valuable in campaigning in ANY of those states simply because they are NOT the majority of the population and their population percentages as opposed to the rest of the country are insignificant enough. If right now the Electoral College makes them irrelevant, if you abolish the Electoral College it would make them even LESS relevant. There is no point in campaigning in states that hold such an insignificant percentage of the population if you were to abolish the electoral college. Right now there's no point in campaigning in states which are partisan, and that's ONE problem. Abolishing it for direct voting would only compound your problems.

[Outer Sparta]

John Ewards. That sums up the Electoral College.

[Genivaria]

And why would you care about the Dakotas and Wyoming or the other small states if they are "safe" bets you will win them? In other words, why would you spend money on a state that is going to back your party even if your presidential candidate kills a monkey at a zoo anyways?

The problem with current election trends is not the electoral college. Is the fact that state by state breakdowns show an overwhelmingly issue with electoral trends, which is that people will always be partisan, and states which are heavily partisan are "safe bets". So you are not really solving anything anyways by switching to a popular vote system. You're just ensuring we will pay more attention to the votes to see which states are "swinging" more and politicians go and spend more money on those states.

Again, Texas and California still wouldn't be relevant under your system because they are partisan. Swing states only matter because they aren't safe bets. If a state was a safe bet under a popular vote system it would make fuck all sense to spend money there. So you're still stuck with your problem regardless of the system, in other words abolishing one system for another doesn't solve the issue of partisanship. Which is one of the problems, and perhaps the main problem, you have with the system as it stands, that they don't spend enough money on certain states for campaigning whereas they focus their attention in others. That's partisan politics, not a flaw of the electoral system.

You claimed that the Electoral College protects small states. I pointed out that the Electoral College is not beneficial for 14 out of the 15 smallest states. Under direct presidential election, all states would matter. More importantly, all votes would matter. Additionally, it'd be easier to elect a candidate who's neither a Democrat, nor a Republican if we allow a run off election between the top two candidates.

That would go a long way in undoing the echo chamber effect that we've had in this country.
Either conform to the party line or NEVER reach any office.

[Chinese Peoples]

All countries need their quirks, and this one is for the USA.

[Shofercia]

You claimed that the Electoral College protects small states. I pointed out that the Electoral College is not beneficial for 14 out of the 15 smallest states. Under direct presidential election, all states would matter. More importantly, all votes would matter. Additionally, it'd be easier to elect a candidate who's neither a Democrat, nor a Republican if we allow a run off election between the top two candidates.

Under direct presidential election all states still would not matter.

Like I pointed out to you, if a majority of people in a certain state is going to vote for you anyways, there's no point in going to those states and campaign down there, in particular if they are heavily partisan like Texas and California. The point that if we abolish the electoral college states like Texas and California -- two heavily partisan states -- would matter more is a complete fabrication. It wouldn't happen.

And you would still not help the smallest states. In fact, you would not find anything valuable in campaigning in ANY of those states simply because they are NOT the majority of the population and their population percentages as opposed to the rest of the country are insignificant enough. If right now the Electoral College makes them irrelevant, if you abolish the Electoral College it would make them even LESS relevant. There is no point in campaigning in states that hold such an insignificant percentage of the population if you were to abolish the electoral college. Right now there's no point in campaigning in states which are partisan, and that's ONE problem. Abolishing it for direct voting would only compound your problems.

Actually this is where you're wrong. California and Texas are partisan, but remove the Electoral College, and the turnout starts to matter, because we're no longer voting by states. We're voting as a united country, as the United States. Additionally, campaigning in the small states would still matter, because that would get the vote out. You'd need several trips to SF to get the vote out. You'd only need one trip to Cheyenne, because for Wyoming, that's a huge event. Currently you have 0 trips to both, but dozens of trips to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Under direct presidential election all states still would not matter.

Like I pointed out to you, if a majority of people in a certain state is going to vote for you anyways, there's no point in going to those states and campaign down there, in particular if they are heavily partisan like Texas and California. The point that if we abolish the electoral college states like Texas and California -- two heavily partisan states -- would matter more is a complete fabrication. It wouldn't happen.

And you would still not help the smallest states. In fact, you would not find anything valuable in campaigning in ANY of those states simply because they are NOT the majority of the population and their population percentages as opposed to the rest of the country are insignificant enough. If right now the Electoral College makes them irrelevant, if you abolish the Electoral College it would make them even LESS relevant. There is no point in campaigning in states that hold such an insignificant percentage of the population if you were to abolish the electoral college. Right now there's no point in campaigning in states which are partisan, and that's ONE problem. Abolishing it for direct voting would only compound your problems.

Actually this is where you're wrong. California and Texas are partisan, but remove the Electoral College, and the turnout starts to matter, because we're no longer voting by states. We're voting as a united country, as the United States. Additionally, campaigning in the small states would still matter, because that would get the vote out. You'd need several trips to SF to get the vote out. You'd only need one trip to Cheyenne, because for Wyoming, that's a huge event. Currently you have 0 trips to both, but dozens of trips to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.

And like I said before, why would you spend money in California and Texas if they are partisan anyways?

You know you will get the majority of the votes in those states because they back up your party and are loyal to your party and its interests, so there's no reason why they have to do anything to come down here.

You have no reason to pander to the people who support you. It's the undecided people who you try to convince every election. Those who back you will back you up anyways. That's what we call partisanship.

Sure, you're still voting as states, but states would not be electoral units as much as logical units in how to strategize where you deploy your efforts. The smaller states wouldn't even matter at that point because, if you make things matter by popular vote, the smallest states don't even hold 50% of the population together, so they are thoroughly irrelevant to campaign on anyways. You'd be campaigning on states that assure you 50% of the vote or more. A state with less than 5% of the population would matter fuck all to anybody tracking the elections because there's no point in making an effort in getting less than 5% of the popular vote if you are a major party. In other words, the shift of power and investment would only go to non-partisan, big population states. You have less than 5% of the vote, or partisan? We're not even going to bother.