Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Spirit of Hope]

Saying the electoral college is due to slavery is a revisionist lie.

Actually it does have to do with protecting tyranny from big cities. if you payed attention to the Founding Fathers’ Great Compromise at all

The gregreat Compromise wasn't about urban vs rural, it was about large states vs small states. That is an important distinction, no state at the time was largely urban all states were predominantly rural, however some states were larger and had larger populations than other states. Slave states certainly pushed for the 3/5th compromise, knowing it would benefit them under the constitution, in both the house and the electoral college.

Besides a popular vote would have been impossible at the time, the slaves states wouldn't have stood for it and all of the states had diffrent voting laws which would have made the popular vote near impossible to implement.

The electoral college was never intended to operate as it currently does, the electors were not supposed to be pledged, or required by law, to vote for a specific person. What the electoral college does now is destroy democracy by making sure presidents only campaign for a small number of swing states, and only for a small number of voters in those swing states. And the swing states arent the small states either.

[Vassenor]

Saying the electoral college is due to slavery is a revisionist lie.

Actually it does have to do with protecting tyranny from big cities. if you payed attention to the Founding Fathers’ Great Compromise at all

Repeating this lie doesn't make it true.

Do you think New York City, Los Angeles, and maybe one or two other cities should decide who the president is, regardless of what the entire rest of the country thinks?

Would those cities decide the president if you used a simple popular vote? Let's have a think about that. The population of New York is 8.6 million. The population of LA is just under 4 million. Chicago is 2.7 million. Houston is 2.3 million. Phoenix is 1.6 million. Philadelphia is 1.5 million, San Antonio is 1.5 million, San Diego is 1.4 million, Dallas is 1.3 million, and San Jose is a little over 1 million.

That's the ten most populous cities in the Unites States, and coincidentally the only cities with populations over 1 million. Total population of all ten: ~25.9 million. Couple million off the entire population of Texas.
In 2016, Clinton got 65.8 million votes to Trump's 62.9 million.

I'm not going to keep counting up city populations, and I'm certainly not going to go to all the trouble to work out the number of voters in those cities, but I would guess that to win a popular vote in the US by carrying cities alone would require winning 100% of the vote of at least the top fifty most populous cities in the US. City number 50, for reference? Wichita, Kansas. Allowing for city dwellers not all voting for the same candidate, you'd need to win majorities of, I would guess, well over a hundred cities. City number 100? Des Moines, Iowa.

Not exactly NYC and LA and a few other cities choosing the president regardless of what the rest of the country wants.

[Pacomia]

They also won the popular vote.

They did. But a win without the popular vote is still a win.

I'm VERY late, but I just want to say that FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton exist. Since FDR, elections have been 12 Dem wins to 10 Republican wins.

[Tekania]

I'm okay with the electoral college. If anything what we need are term limits on congressmen. The President does not have absolutely authority. An ineffectual congress is more of a hazard than a stupid president.

[Telconi]

They did. But a win without the popular vote is still a win.

I'm VERY late, but I just want to say that FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton exist. Since FDR, elections have been 12 Dem wins to 10 Republican wins.

Better 12 to 10 than 14 to 8 amirite?

[Pacomia]

I'm VERY late, but I just want to say that FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton exist. Since FDR, elections have been 12 Dem wins to 10 Republican wins.

Better 12 to 10 than 14 to 8 amirite?

Mug

[Vassenor]

I'm okay with the electoral college. If anything what we need are term limits on congressmen. The President does not have absolutely authority. An ineffectual congress is more of a hazard than a stupid president.

Trump said he has unlimited power and Trump never lies.

[Des-Bal]

Yes it's stupid.

[GlobalControl]

Actually it does have to do with protecting tyranny from big cities. if you payed attention to the Founding Fathers’ Great Compromise at all

Repeating this lie doesn't make it true.

Would those cities decide the president if you used a simple popular vote? Let's have a think about that. The population of New York is 8.6 million. The population of LA is just under 4 million. Chicago is 2.7 million. Houston is 2.3 million. Phoenix is 1.6 million. Philadelphia is 1.5 million, San Antonio is 1.5 million, San Diego is 1.4 million, Dallas is 1.3 million, and San Jose is a little over 1 million.

That's the ten most populous cities in the Unites States, and coincidentally the only cities with populations over 1 million. Total population of all ten: ~25.9 million. Couple million off the entire population of Texas.
In 2016, Clinton got 65.8 million votes to Trump's 62.9 million.

I'm not going to keep counting up city populations, and I'm certainly not going to go to all the trouble to work out the number of voters in those cities, but I would guess that to win a popular vote in the US by carrying cities alone would require winning 100% of the vote of at least the top fifty most populous cities in the US. City number 50, for reference? Wichita, Kansas. Allowing for city dwellers not all voting for the same candidate, you'd need to win majorities of, I would guess, well over a hundred cities. City number 100? Des Moines, Iowa.

Not exactly NYC and LA and a few other cities choosing the president regardless of what the rest of the country wants.

And arguing with someone else's words doesn't make you right.

[New Bremerton]

the deep state

Members of Congress and the Senate are directly elected. The Prime Minister would be drawn from among the ranks of Parliament Congress, and can be easily toppled through a vote of no confidence, forcing an early election.

the power to appoint their own deep state leader who works for the legislative majority rather than for the country will go well.

Britain's been doing just fine for a whole century now. Boris Johnson would be a "deep state leader" by your logic. After all, only a small handful of Tory party members voted for him to succeed Theresa May as Prime Minister, and only his constituents were able to elect him to be their MP for Uxbridge. Were he to lose his seat, he would cease to be PM even if his party wins the election.

Parliamentary democracy with proportional representation is the best way forward. Israel, Germany, New Zealand and (to a lesser extent) Australia practice this form of democracy, among other countries. Prime ministers tend to wield less personal power than presidents and are much easier to topple. No impeachment necessary. With PR, all parties and interest groups are represented in some way, including rural voters in the so-called "flyover states", and no single party would have an outright majority in Congress. Gerrymandering would be totally negated, and seats would be allocated to parties in accordance with the popular vote.

[Epepistan]

Yes.

[Spirit of Hope]

Repeating this lie doesn't make it true.

And arguing with someone else's words doesn't make you right.

And your statement doesn't rebut anything.

The electoral college should be dissolved, it disenfranchises a majority of the country to empower a select few in swing states.

A historical argument, i.e. why was the electoral college created, does not work because the electoral college is not working as intended.

An argument that a popular vote will make cities kingmakers ignores how much of the population any city has, not enough to as a group swing a national election.

[Telconi]

And arguing with someone else's words doesn't make you right.

And your statement doesn't rebut anything.

The electoral college should be dissolved, it disenfranchises a majority of the country to empower a select few in swing states.

A historical argument, i.e. why was the electoral college created, does not work because the electoral college is not working as intended.

An argument that a popular vote will make cities kingmakers ignores how much of the population any city has, not enough to as a group swing a national election.

How does it empower a select few in swing states?

[Vassenor]

Repeating this lie doesn't make it true.

And arguing with someone else's words doesn't make you right.

Says the person repeating someone else's words about big cities dominating the vote.

[Salandriagado]

Saying the electoral college is due to slavery is a revisionist lie.

Actually it does have to do with protecting tyranny from big cities. if you payed attention to the Founding Fathers’ Great Compromise at all

So which big cities were they worried about in a country with a total population of ~3 million?

[GlobalControl]

And arguing with someone else's words doesn't make you right.

Says the person repeating someone else's words about big cities dominating the vote.

Got me there.

[Spirit of Hope]

And your statement doesn't rebut anything.

The electoral college should be dissolved, it disenfranchises a majority of the country to empower a select few in swing states.

A historical argument, i.e. why was the electoral college created, does not work because the electoral college is not working as intended.

An argument that a popular vote will make cities kingmakers ignores how much of the population any city has, not enough to as a group swing a national election.

How does it empower a select few in swing states?

1) Most states are basically locked in for one party or another, the major places candidates campaign is swing states.
2) Most voters in swing states are reliable partisan voters, only a small number of voters in swing states swing there vote.

So to win the presidency, a major candidate needs to pay enough lip service to there party to lock in the party loyal voters. Then they fight for the swing voters in the swing states. That is who you target, you don't need to really care about anybody else.

Energizing your base does play a part, but you generally arent going to increase your base by enough if you can't win the swing vote in the swing state.

[Dooom35796821595]

Yes. And Congress. And the Senate. And the Presidency.

*writes out an invitation to the Queen*

I’m sorry, the Queen is busy. But you can have Prince Charles, we’ll just go straight to William.

[Telconi]

How does it empower a select few in swing states?

1) Most states are basically locked in for one party or another, the major places candidates campaign is swing states.
2) Most voters in swing states are reliable partisan voters, only a small number of voters in swing states swing there vote.

So to win the presidency, a major candidate needs to pay enough lip service to there party to lock in the party loyal voters. Then they fight for the swing voters in the swing states. That is who you target, you don't need to really care about anybody else.

Energizing your base does play a part, but you generally arent going to increase your base by enough if you can't win the swing vote in the swing state.

But the electoral college doesn't cause that. States themselves decide to implement winner takes all delegations.

[Spirit of Hope]

1) Most states are basically locked in for one party or another, the major places candidates campaign is swing states.
2) Most voters in swing states are reliable partisan voters, only a small number of voters in swing states swing there vote.

So to win the presidency, a major candidate needs to pay enough lip service to there party to lock in the party loyal voters. Then they fight for the swing voters in the swing states. That is who you target, you don't need to really care about anybody else.

Energizing your base does play a part, but you generally arent going to increase your base by enough if you can't win the swing vote in the swing state.

But the electoral college doesn't cause that. States themselves decide to implement winner takes all delegations.

If a state doesn't do winner takes all they dilute there power in the electoral college. Of Texas or California decided to go for proportional distribution of their votes they would loose there party the presidency. If a swing state goes proportional they would no longer be a swing state anyone would campaign in.

The electoral college forces this behavior.

I agree FPTP is terrible, but any state that wants to be listened to has to keep it with the electoral college.

[The South Falls]

I would think the popular vote would be a more expedient option. We're in an age of more information, (diluted and faked as some of it may be) and I feel that that has to be reflected in our method of choosing the president.

[Salandriagado]

Were he to lose his seat, he would cease to be PM even if his party wins the election.

Minor quibble, but not necessarily: there's no requirement to be an MP in order to be Prime Minister: if you can command the confidence of the commons after being invited to try to form a government by the Queen, you're the Prime Minister. There are no formal requirements other than that. In particular, Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister, but neither an MP nor a member of the House of Lords, between the 23rd of October 1963 (when he the Earldom of Home, and with it his seat in the House of Lords) and the 12th of November 1963 (when he took his seat as MP for Kinross and West Perthshire, having won a by-election in the intervening time).

[Telconi]

But the electoral college doesn't cause that. States themselves decide to implement winner takes all delegations.

If a state doesn't do winner takes all they dilute there power in the electoral college. Of Texas or California decided to go for proportional distribution of their votes they would loose there party the presidency. If a swing state goes proportional they would no longer be a swing state anyone would campaign in.

The electoral college forces this behavior.

I agree FPTP is terrible, but any state that wants to be listened to has to keep it with the electoral college.

So basically you want winner-takes all gone and you're tossing the baby with the bathwater.

[Ave Gloriana]

No.

I live in Tennessee. We have no desire to be ruled by NY and California.

Abolishing the electoral college would mean civil war.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Entirely undemocratic and needs to be yeeted asap.