Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[New haven america]

Ellaborate

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

Thou doth protest too much.

[Bread Herbert]

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

Thou doth protest too much.

No one likes a sore loser

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

One, it allows politicians to turn men and women against each other by utilization of gender identity politics, through which they can appeal to one segment of the population and use them against the other.

That happens regardless of whether or not women can vote. If not appeal to or divide based on sex, then it'll be based on race, religion, national origin, region, state, county or municipality.

It splits Husband from Wife

So what? Wives aren't the property of their husbands and vice versa.

It also, obviously undermines our internal unity.

Only insofar as sexists are the ones trying to undermine it.

Secondly, the 19th Amendment transformed the nature of voting in of itself

Again, so what? Every amendment involving the right to vote has transformed the nature of voting, like when black people could vote, people the age of 18 and when poll taxes were outlawed by constitutional amendment. It's not like any of this is actually bad, considering they're all the fulfillment of the ideals of liberty and justice for all, which is arguably more of a bedrock to the nation than family values is.

With the 19th Amendment, voting became an affair of the individual

So what? We also allow and have allowed unmarried people to vote, which by this train of logic is also a no-no.

[Confederate Norway]

No, it is our unique way of voting and I like it.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

But, Trump lost the popular vote.

thus the lib/dems want to change the rules.

And through the constitutional process of amending said constitution, they're certainly allowed to.

[Edgelords United]

Yes for abolishing electoral college.

[Ichlein]

I don't like democracy so yes, abolish it and don't replace it with the popular vote.

[Telconi]

Who said anyone couldn't disagree. If you want to sit at your dinner table and rant and rave about how you're not permitted to make innocent people suffer, that's fine. I am more worried with preventing the actual suffering.

How tyrannical.

There are loads of solutions. Implement unequal election laws, gerrymandering, voter suppression, electoral fraud, protests, riots, strikes, vandalism and sabotage, etc. etc.

What suffering are you preventing when that government was elected freely and fairly?

What’s tyrannical about it?

So you admit you want to rig elections and prevent those you disagree with from voting because they might outvote you. How dictatorial of you

Voter fraud is a crime and someone would blow the whistle. As to your other solutions very few would sympathize with you and welcome you being sent to prison

Any and all suffering that person would cause.

It undermines your precious democracy.

And you want to justify horrifying policies by some arbitrary method of popularity, that isn't better.

Blah blah blah...

[Pacomia]

Can't understand why someone would be against democracy. What the hell?

Y'all should move to China. You'll love it there.

[Telconi]

Can't understand why someone would be against democracy. What the hell?

Y'all should move to China. You'll love it there.

Because it's bad. Yeah, "move to wherever" is a shitty line, no matter who's saying it.

[Pacomia]

Can't understand why someone would be against democracy. What the hell?

Y'all should move to China. You'll love it there.

Because it's bad. Yeah, "move to wherever" is a shitty line, no matter who's saying it.

What do you mean? It's authoritarian just how you like it.

[Big Jim P]

thus the lib/dems want to change the rules.

And through the constitutional process of amending said constitution, they're certainly allowed to.

Most certainly. Good luck getting the support.

[Telconi]

Because it's bad. Yeah, "move to wherever" is a shitty line, no matter who's saying it.

What do you mean? It's authoritarian just how you like it.

But authoritarians are assholes.

[Duvniask]

No, it is our unique way of voting and I like it.

Unique in how much of an overcomplicated, antiquated piece of shit it is, perhaps.

[Kowani]

And through the constitutional process of amending said constitution, they're certainly allowed to.

Most certainly. Good luck getting the support.

They’ve said that before.

[Chernoslavia]

I like how we are the only ones who have to explain our decision.

[Chernoslavia]

Ellaborate

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

This really. It's never been a big issue until they lost.

[Forsher]

I'm surprised this is at the historical 60% mark.

Obviously the Electoral College is a silly idea. Remarkably, the people who made the USA's institutions were not infallible geniuses and they had some stinkers. Unlike the architects of NZ's institutions, however, they created an institutional setting that had no faith whatsoever in the value of democracy... which is probably why we've got rid of most of the bad bits now. In news that won't surprise anyone educated since, say, the 1980s or Herodotus... these settings become part of how people think about the world. In other words, that the US has the EC defines how Americans think and so on.

However, the bigger problem isn't the Electoral College but, rather, that the US has an electoral system where you don't need 50% of the votes to win. I can't remember if it was out of the "recent", post-WWII or just plain all US presidential elections but most of them *aren't* won by someone with more than 50% of the votes. As the OP points out the perverse outcome of the non-largest vote share candidate's winning has also happened in four of those occasions.

If you wanted... as some might be wont to do... treat a parliament as effectively indirectly electing a PM (making them much more analogous to an EC) then it should be pointed out that it's very hard to become PM without commanding more than 50% of the seats. To recap what this means... PMs not only have a greater mandate than American presidents but are actually part of an executive that's much more accountable to the legislature ("electorate"). Of course, you can still talk about parliamentary tyranny but remember how such "tyranny" comes to exist.

Now... I would never design a system to look like the USA's. Not only is it a complete antique designed to reflect early-modern beliefs about politics and early-modern social conditions, but I actively dislike almost all its principles. However, if you made me design such a system I would make the president command a super-majority of 60% and I would use something that involves a form of ranked choice at the voting stage. Which one, I'm not sure, but being able to say you command 60% of the pathetically small share of Americans who turn up and vote, even if many of those are second or third preferences, would be much healthier.

And, here's the thing, you wouldn't need to abolish the EC to get the electoral reform done. And, as that Popular Vote pact thing points out, abolishing the EC can happen without actually abolishing it since the States get to choose (in principle) how their electors know who to vote for. (There's got to be more to it than this, right? I mean, what's stopping a mostly Republican and mostly rural county state like IL from randomly selecting a single county to represent all of its counties... the Chicago vote currently sends IL's electors off to choose the Democrat but Chicago is mostly one county, right?)

So, yeah, the EC is undemocratic and is a big reason why the US is an immature democracy but I think ending FPP voting is more important these days. Even if you didn't require the super majority.

[Forsher]

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

This really. It's never been a big issue until they lost.

And no-one in Ice Hockey cared about netting until they killed a little girl by not having it.

Your point sounds cool until you remember this is literally how humans work. We don't see problems until they're right in front of our faces.

Not that, in this instance, you're correct. The EC's been unpopular for decades and it used to be a bi-partisan issue.

[Vassenor]

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

This really. It's never been a big issue until they lost.

See also Trump's "disaster for democracy" tweets.

[Spirit of Hope]

Ellaborate

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

And if I'm a Republican who has been complaining about it for years before the election?

Lest we forget in 2012 Trump himself said the electoral college was a disaster for democracy.

Then in 2016, after it won him the presidency, he said it was genius.

So Democrats suddenly complaining about it aren't the only ones who have changed their minds.

As to why we should change the electoral college:
1. It does not work as the founders intended, they wanted the electors to choose the president not be bound by the popular vote of their states.
2. It does not make small states matter more, because it makes campaigns about swing states.
3. It allows someone to win the presidency even if they lost the popular vote, which goes against the principle of holding elections.
4. Through the use of FPTP it polarizes our democracy by making third parties non viable. Though this is a problem with the US electoral system in general.

[Ichlein]

Can't understand why someone would be against democracy. What the hell?

Y'all should move to China. You'll love it there.

That argument is like me saying you like Socialism? Then why don't you move to China. You'll love it there.

[Telconi]

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

And if I'm a Republican who has been complaining about it for years before the election?

Lest we forget in 2012 Trump himself said the electoral college was a disaster for democracy.

Then in 2016, after it won him the presidency, he said it was genius.

So Democrats suddenly complaining about it aren't the only ones who have changed their minds.

As to why we should change the electoral college:
1. It does not work as the founders intended, they wanted the electors to choose the president not be bound by the popular vote of their states.
2. It does not make small states matter more, because it makes campaigns about swing states.
3. It allows someone to win the presidency even if they lost the popular vote, which goes against the principle of holding elections.
4. Through the use of FPTP it polarizes our democracy by making third parties non viable. Though this is a problem with the US electoral system in general.

Trump is hardly a paragon of virtue and contemplation.

[Spirit of Hope]

And if I'm a Republican who has been complaining about it for years before the election?

Lest we forget in 2012 Trump himself said the electoral college was a disaster for democracy.

Then in 2016, after it won him the presidency, he said it was genius.

So Democrats suddenly complaining about it aren't the only ones who have changed their minds.

As to why we should change the electoral college:
1. It does not work as the founders intended, they wanted the electors to choose the president not be bound by the popular vote of their states.
2. It does not make small states matter more, because it makes campaigns about swing states.
3. It allows someone to win the presidency even if they lost the popular vote, which goes against the principle of holding elections.
4. Through the use of FPTP it polarizes our democracy by making third parties non viable. Though this is a problem with the US electoral system in general.

Trump is hardly a paragon of virtue and contemplation.

Yes, but he reflects the Republican party in general. 2012 a majority are in favor of amending the constitution, 2016 that is no longer the case. Gallup. Democrats already supported the change, and there support just increased.

[Pacomia]

I'm surprised this is at the historical 60% mark.

Obviously the Electoral College is a silly idea. Remarkably, the people who made the USA's institutions were not infallible geniuses and they had some stinkers. Unlike the architects of NZ's institutions, however, they created an institutional setting that had no faith whatsoever in the value of democracy... which is probably why we've got rid of most of the bad bits now. In news that won't surprise anyone educated since, say, the 1980s or Herodotus... these settings become part of how people think about the world. In other words, that the US has the EC defines how Americans think and so on.

However, the bigger problem isn't the Electoral College but, rather, that the US has an electoral system where you don't need 50% of the votes to win. I can't remember if it was out of the "recent", post-WWII or just plain all US presidential elections but most of them *aren't* won by someone with more than 50% of the votes. As the OP points out the perverse outcome of the non-largest vote share candidate's winning has also happened in four of those occasions.

If you wanted... as some might be wont to do... treat a parliament as effectively indirectly electing a PM (making them much more analogous to an EC) then it should be pointed out that it's very hard to become PM without commanding more than 50% of the seats. To recap what this means... PMs not only have a greater mandate than American presidents but are actually part of an executive that's much more accountable to the legislature ("electorate"). Of course, you can still talk about parliamentary tyranny but remember how such "tyranny" comes to exist.

Now... I would never design a system to look like the USA's. Not only is it a complete antique designed to reflect early-modern beliefs about politics and early-modern social conditions, but I actively dislike almost all its principles. However, if you made me design such a system I would make the president command a super-majority of 60% and I would use something that involves a form of ranked choice at the voting stage. Which one, I'm not sure, but being able to say you command 60% of the pathetically small share of Americans who turn up and vote, even if many of those are second or third preferences, would be much healthier.

And, here's the thing, you wouldn't need to abolish the EC to get the electoral reform done. And, as that Popular Vote pact thing points out, abolishing the EC can happen without actually abolishing it since the States get to choose (in principle) how their electors know who to vote for. (There's got to be more to it than this, right? I mean, what's stopping a mostly Republican and mostly rural county state like IL from randomly selecting a single county to represent all of its counties... the Chicago vote currently sends IL's electors off to choose the Democrat but Chicago is mostly one county, right?)

So, yeah, the EC is undemocratic and is a big reason why the US is an immature democracy but I think ending FPP voting is more important these days. Even if you didn't require the super majority.

I agree. FPTP is a bigger problem than the electoral college, but the electoral college is a problem too and if we can't get rid of FPTP, we can at least make things slightly fairer and more democratic by removing the Electoral College.