Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[Proctopeo]

We're not under tyranny, and even under President Trump, we, in all likelihood, won't be.

We live with a system where you can lose by 3 million votes and still win.
If that's not a failure of democracy I don't know what is.

It would be, if we were a direct democracy. But we're not.

We're not under tyranny, and even under President Trump, we, in all likelihood, won't be.

And popular vote wouldn't create a tyranny either, all the other checks and balances still exist.

I'm aware; I was simply giving a reason for the system, according to history.

[Genivaria]

We live with a system where you can lose by 3 million votes and still win.
If that's not a failure of democracy I don't know what is.

It would be, if we were a direct democracy. But we're not.

And popular vote wouldn't create a tyranny either, all the other checks and balances still exist.

I'm aware; I was simply giving a reason for the system, according to history.

Direct democracy has nothing to do with this discussion.
A REPRESENTATIVE democracy is one where representatives are elected BY THE PEOPLE.
Do you understand this?

[Proctopeo]

It would be, if we were a direct democracy. But we're not.


I'm aware; I was simply giving a reason for the system, according to history.

Direct democracy has nothing to do with this discussion.
A REPRESENTATIVE democracy is one where representatives are elected BY THE PEOPLE.
Do you understand this?

Calm down please. And explain why it doesn't - there are many kinds of democracies, after all.
And do note that representatives and senators are elected by a plurality. A representative, the President, is able to be elected without a majority of the popular vote, although this isn't especially common, happening less than 9% of the time. And in one of those cases, nobody got a majority.

[Genivaria]

Direct democracy has nothing to do with this discussion.
A REPRESENTATIVE democracy is one where representatives are elected BY THE PEOPLE.
Do you understand this?

Calm down please. And explain why it doesn't - there are many kinds of democracies, after all.
And do note that representatives and senators are elected by a plurality. A representative, the President, is able to be elected without a majority of the popular vote, although this isn't especially common, happening less than 9% of the time. And in one of those cases, nobody got a majority.

Why what doesn't?

[Proctopeo]

Calm down please. And explain why it doesn't - there are many kinds of democracies, after all.
And do note that representatives and senators are elected by a plurality. A representative, the President, is able to be elected without a majority of the popular vote, although this isn't especially common, happening less than 9% of the time. And in one of those cases, nobody got a majority.

Why what doesn't?

Direct democracy.

[Genivaria]

Why what doesn't?

Direct democracy.

Because noone is proposing a direct democracy.
They are proposing a functioning representative democracy.

A direct democracy would be where the people themselves vote on every major issue.

[Lalaki]

Why what doesn't?

Direct democracy.

Going on a tangent, I'm not as suspicious of direct democracy as others are. We had a severe overcrowding issue in my school district after the state legislature had refused to raise taxes to fund school construction. It was politically unpopular. However, we got a ballot initiative where voters had the option to approve a sales tax increase -- which we did by a sizable margin. We also legalized marijuana and passed universal background checks.

[Lalaki]

Direct democracy.

Because noone is proposing a direct democracy.
They are proposing a functioning representative democracy.

A direct democracy would be where the people themselves vote on every major issue.

That's not a bad idea. Of course, we would need legislators and other experts to craft complex budgets and such -- but I don't see the problem in allowing voters to directly decide on the issues.

[Genivaria]

Because noone is proposing a direct democracy.
They are proposing a functioning representative democracy.

A direct democracy would be where the people themselves vote on every major issue.

That's not a bad idea. Of course, we would need legislators and other experts to craft complex budgets and such -- but I don't see the problem in allowing voters to directly decide on the issues.

I don't disagree, I was just trying to explain that wanting an actual representative democracy isn't the same as wanting direct democracy.

[Proctopeo]

Direct democracy.

Because noone is proposing a direct democracy.
They are proposing a functioning representative democracy.

A direct democracy would be where the people themselves vote on every major issue.

Yeah, my bad, I got the terms mixed up. I meant a first-past-the-post popular vote-based representative democracy.
Also, America is a democratic republic, in which people indirectly elect the President and directly elect other representatives. Seems functioning to me, given that the popular vote doesn't matter.

[Lalaki]

Because noone is proposing a direct democracy.
They are proposing a functioning representative democracy.

A direct democracy would be where the people themselves vote on every major issue.

Yeah, my bad, I got the terms mixed up. I meant a first-past-the-post popular vote-based representative democracy.
Also, America is a democratic republic, in which people indirectly elect the President and directly elect other representatives. Seems functioning to me, given that the popular vote doesn't matter.

All systems "function." What we should be asking is if a change is necessary -- and I think it is. The fact that two candidates with less than a plurality of votes have won in 20 years is concerning. Maybe the founding fathers would be OK with it, but I think we can do better than them.

[Genivaria]

Because noone is proposing a direct democracy.
They are proposing a functioning representative democracy.

A direct democracy would be where the people themselves vote on every major issue.

Yeah, my bad, I got the terms mixed up. I meant a first-past-the-post popular vote-based representative democracy.
Also, America is a democratic republic, in which people indirectly elect the President and directly elect other representatives. Seems functioning to me, given that the popular vote doesn't matter.

If your car was engineered to explode without the drivers knowledge it still be 'functioning' by your logic.

[Proctopeo]

Yeah, my bad, I got the terms mixed up. I meant a first-past-the-post popular vote-based representative democracy.
Also, America is a democratic republic, in which people indirectly elect the President and directly elect other representatives. Seems functioning to me, given that the popular vote doesn't matter.

If your car was engineered to explode without the drivers knowledge it still be 'functioning' by your logic.

If that's supposed to be an extension of my logic, then it failed. Let me help you.

If my car was engineered to start playing bagpipe music loudly one in every ten times I started it up, I would still consider it functioning, even if the bagpipe music is bothersome and makes others annoyed, since it's still a good car.

I think this just proves that extending a perception of logic to metaphors doesn't work very well half the time. But I got closer to what I know my logic is.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

If your car was engineered to explode without the drivers knowledge it still be 'functioning' by your logic.

If that's supposed to be an extension of my logic, then it failed. Let me help you.

If my car was engineered to start playing bagpipe music loudly one in every ten times I started it up, I would still consider it functioning, even if the bagpipe music is bothersome and makes others annoyed, since it's still a good car.

Just because it functions doesn't mean it's good.

[Proctopeo]

If that's supposed to be an extension of my logic, then it failed. Let me help you.

If my car was engineered to start playing bagpipe music loudly one in every ten times I started it up, I would still consider it functioning, even if the bagpipe music is bothersome and makes others annoyed, since it's still a good car.

Just because it functions doesn't mean it's good.

Functioning is better than not functioning.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Just because it functions doesn't mean it's good.

Functioning is better than not functioning.

Functioning well is better than functioning poorly.

[Proctopeo]

Functioning is better than not functioning.

Functioning well is better than functioning poorly.

And who gets to decide who and what is functioning well, and from what point of view?

[Spirit of Hope]

Functioning well is better than functioning poorly.

And who gets to decide who and what is functioning well, and from what point of view?

Any representative democracy should represent the most people. Creating a system that can dramatically underrepresent the people appears to be a failure to me.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Functioning well is better than functioning poorly.

And who gets to decide who and what is functioning well, and from what point of view?

Look at it objectively. A candidate loses by three million votes, spews the kind of hatred that would effectively disqualify any other candidate from the get-go, and has little to no consistency in his policies.
This candidate will become the President of the United States.
That is not functioning well.

[Proctopeo]

And who gets to decide who and what is functioning well, and from what point of view?

Look at it objectively. A candidate loses by three million votes, spews the kind of hatred that would effectively disqualify any other candidate from the get-go, and has little to no consistency in his policies.
This candidate will become the President of the United States.
That is not functioning well.

I respect your opinion, although I do not agree with you. I'm kinda burned out on this argument for now, so I'll come back later.

[Genivaria]

Functioning well is better than functioning poorly.

And who gets to decide who and what is functioning well, and from what point of view?

The one driving the car in this case.

[Genivaria]

Look at it objectively. A candidate loses by three million votes, spews the kind of hatred that would effectively disqualify any other candidate from the get-go, and has little to no consistency in his policies.
This candidate will become the President of the United States.
That is not functioning well.

I respect your opinion, although I do not agree with you. I'm kinda burned out on this argument for now, so I'll come back later.

Then you're simply wrong.

[Proctopeo]

I respect your opinion, although I do not agree with you. I'm kinda burned out on this argument for now, so I'll come back later.

Then you're simply wrong.

Calling someone wrong doesn't make them wrong. You can call me tired if you would like to be accurate.

[Genivaria]

Then you're simply wrong.

Calling someone wrong doesn't make them wrong. You can call me tired if you would like to be accurate.

You're wrong because you have to bend over backwards and change definitions to defend a broken system.
And in your car analogy the car company would be sued and would have to change their design or lose business.

Flaws in a system when pointed out demand correction.

[Proctopeo]

Calling someone wrong doesn't make them wrong. You can call me tired if you would like to be accurate.

You're wrong because you have to bend over backwards and change definitions to defend a broken system.
And in your car analogy the car company would be sued and would have to change their design or lose business.

Flaws in a system when pointed out demand correction.

I'll continue this later, although in the meantime please explain your first point more.