Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Kowani]

True. But. Every time we’ve had a minority president, they’ve been in between shit and mediocre. There have obviously been terrible majority presidents. But a 100% failure rate would suggest that something is fucking wrong.


When the minority can override the majority despite a major difference in numbers, you have a broken democracy.

A broken democracy seems preferable than the majority being able to impose its will without protections for the minority.

Nope. What you have here is rule of minority. (Who, coincidentally, keep voting for policies that hurt them.) The minority has shown that they are unworthy of those protections.

[New haven america]

If more people want a candidate, that candidate is elected. It ain’t the city-dwellers’ fault that there aren’t many people in rural Oklahoma. Of course, some of this could conceivably be fixed by switching to ranked voting and moving away from a two-party system.

Anyway, if there’s more people in urban areas than in rural areas, they should get more representation. A person shouldn’t have more voting power than someone else just because they live in a podunk in Wyoming.

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

Because part of the reason it was made was continue the disenfranchisement of slaves in the South.

If the South actually considered black people as, you know, people, then it would've gotten equal representation in Congress during the early days of the country, but they didn't, hence their population was counted as lower than the North's. They got all uppity about that and the person who invented the EC had to make it so they got equal say while also allowing them to continue having slavery.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, this is the thread for that. Clearly.

Then why did you try to start an argument?

[Pacomia]

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

That's not just permissible, it's mandatory.


I hope we gerrymander the fuck out of every GOP controlled state in 2021.

Ok, we’re going to step into that territory. Ok.

[Salus Maior]

In democracy it is supposed to be rule of the people.

It's usually the rule of the majority, for better or for worse.

Really only in America. Most other republics don't have the winner-take-all system we have which just sows bitterness, most other ones allow the 'losing' party to take seats wherever, just fewer than the winners. So at least those who bother to go out and vote for the less popular party get something for their vote, instead of it being a complete waste of time.

[Ors Might]

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

Leveling the playing field shouldn’t be a thing in democracy. Each person should get 1 vote, and exactly 1 vote, no less, no more.

Also, the electoral college doesn’t even necessarily benefit small states because the electors are in no way required to vote how their constituency or district or whatever voted. Hell, an elector could even vote for Party A even if everyone they were representing voted for Party B. Nothing is stopping them.

Not leveling the playing field will inevitably result in certain groups not getting their interests met, unless the majority for some reason decides to vote in favor of them. Democracy is not some sort of inherent good.

[Arlenton]

That's not just permissible, it's mandatory.


I hope we gerrymander the fuck out of every GOP controlled state in 2021.

Ok, we’re going to step into that territory. Ok.

Just wait until someone brings up guns. Or when San Lumen and Telconi get in here.

[Pacomia]

Okay, can someone explain WHY they think we should have the electoral college? Don’t say “to level the playing fields” or anything, explain why you think we should level the playing fields.

[Salus Maior]

Also, the electoral college doesn’t even necessarily benefit small states because the electors are in no way required to vote how their constituency or district or whatever voted. Hell, an elector could even vote for Party A even if everyone they were representing voted for Party B. Nothing is stopping them.

That's not entirely true.

There are laws in certain states that require the Electors to vote with the state. Not everyone has those, but they exist.

[Pacomia]

Leveling the playing field shouldn’t be a thing in democracy. Each person should get 1 vote, and exactly 1 vote, no less, no more.

Also, the electoral college doesn’t even necessarily benefit small states because the electors are in no way required to vote how their constituency or district or whatever voted. Hell, an elector could even vote for Party A even if everyone they were representing voted for Party B. Nothing is stopping them.

Not leveling the playing field will inevitably result in certain groups not getting their interests met, unless the majority for some reason decides to vote in favor of them. Democracy is not some sort of inherent good.

But the majority does get their interest met (remember to ignore why that isn’t true because of FPTP), and isn’t that the point of democracy?

[Arlenton]

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

Because part of the reason it was made was continue the disenfranchisement of slaves in the South.

If the South actually considered black people as, you know, people, then it would've gotten equal representation in Congress during the early days of the country, but they didn't, hence their population was counted as lower than the North's. They got all uppity about that and the person who invented the EC had to make it so they got equal say while also allowing them to continue having slavery.

The Southern slave owners wanted slaves to count as full people. Northerners did not want them counted at all.

[Pacomia]

Also, the electoral college doesn’t even necessarily benefit small states because the electors are in no way required to vote how their constituency or district or whatever voted. Hell, an elector could even vote for Party A even if everyone they were representing voted for Party B. Nothing is stopping them.

That's not entirely true.

There are laws in certain states that require the Electors to vote with the state. Not everyone has those, but they exist.

In CERTAIN states. Not all states. If we’re going to have the electoral college at all, that should be mandatory in every state.

[Kowani]

Leveling the playing field shouldn’t be a thing in democracy. Each person should get 1 vote, and exactly 1 vote, no less, no more.

Also, the electoral college doesn’t even necessarily benefit small states because the electors are in no way required to vote how their constituency or district or whatever voted. Hell, an elector could even vote for Party A even if everyone they were representing voted for Party B. Nothing is stopping them.

Not leveling the playing field will inevitably result in certain groups not getting their interests met, unless the majority for some reason decides to vote in favor of them. Democracy is not some sort of inherent good.

No shit. That’s the thing about large groups of people-someone is always gonna get fucked over. Regardless I how much you “level the playing field”, someone isn’t gonna have their interests met.

[Ors Might]

A broken democracy seems preferable than the majority being able to impose its will without protections for the minority.

Nope. What you have here is rule of minority. (Who, coincidentally, keep voting for policies that hurt them.) The minority has shown that they are unworthy of those protections.

Not allowing the majority to do whatever they wish isn’t minority rule.

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

Because part of the reason it was made was continue the disenfranchisement of slaves in the South.

If the South actually considered black people as, you know, people, then it would've gotten equal representation in Congress during the early days of the country, but they didn't, hence their population was counted as lower than the North's. They got all uppity about that and the person who invented the EC had to make it so they got equal say while also allowing them to continue having slavery.

You missed my point. I’m saying that there is already precedent for giving minority groups more power than their numbers would otherwise allow.

[Arlenton]

Okay, can someone explain WHY they think we should have the electoral college? Don’t say “to level the playing fields” or anything, explain why you think we should level the playing fields.

So policies I support are more likely to be enacted, and those I oppose less likely.

[Kowani]

Nope. What you have here is rule of minority. (Who, coincidentally, keep voting for policies that hurt them.) The minority has shown that they are unworthy of those protections.

Not allowing the majority to do whatever they wish isn’t minority rule.

Except, you know-it is. You attempt to make it sound better, but it remains minority rule.

[Pacomia]

You missed my point. I’m saying that there is already precedent for giving minority groups more power than their numbers would otherwise allow.

And maybe we should be getting rid of that precedent rather than continuing it.

[Salus Maior]

That's not entirely true.

There are laws in certain states that require the Electors to vote with the state. Not everyone has those, but they exist.

In CERTAIN states. Not all states. If we’re going to have the electoral college at all, that should be mandatory in every state.

Which is what I said, isn't it?

And that's up for the states in question to decide, they're the ones that make the laws for themselves.

[Pacomia]

Okay, can someone explain WHY they think we should have the electoral college? Don’t say “to level the playing fields” or anything, explain why you think we should level the playing fields.

So policies I support are more likely to be enacted, and those I oppose less likely.

Other than personal reasons. Explain why it’s better for the good of the people as a whole.

[Ors Might]

Not leveling the playing field will inevitably result in certain groups not getting their interests met, unless the majority for some reason decides to vote in favor of them. Democracy is not some sort of inherent good.

No shit. That’s the thing about large groups of people-someone is always gonna get fucked over. Regardless I how much you “level the playing field”, someone isn’t gonna have their interests met.

Indeed, which is why you introduce protections and balances in order to prevent as much of the fuckening as you can.

[Kowani]

Okay, can someone explain WHY they think we should have the electoral college? Don’t say “to level the playing fields” or anything, explain why you think we should level the playing fields.

So policies I support are more likely to be enacted, and those I oppose less likely.

Perhaps you should get better policies. Or better politicians.

[Pacomia]

In CERTAIN states. Not all states. If we’re going to have the electoral college at all, that should be mandatory in every state.

Which is what I said, isn't it?

And that's up for the states in question to decide, they're the ones that make the laws for themselves.

Normally, I’m in full support of states making their own laws and having as much power as possible, but this is just ridiculous. When an elector votes against their people they are not only failing to do their job, but also undermining democracy. It’s just dumb.

[Arlenton]

So policies I support are more likely to be enacted, and those I oppose less likely.

Other than personal reasons. Explain why it’s better for the good of the people as a whole.

I don't know. I don't care. Too much at stake to risk losing because muh fairness.

[Ors Might]

Not allowing the majority to do whatever they wish isn’t minority rule.

Except, you know-it is. You attempt to make it sound better, but it remains minority rule.

False. The majority isn’t able to vote on whether asians can be considered human. That does not make this a minority rule of asians.

[Salus Maior]

Which is what I said, isn't it?

And that's up for the states in question to decide, they're the ones that make the laws for themselves.

Normally, I’m in full support of states making their own laws and having as much power as possible, but this is just ridiculous. When an elector votes against their people they are not only failing to do their job, but also undermining democracy. It’s just dumb.

Then I guess if the people have a problem with it, they can make laws on it.