Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Telconi]

And the planter was created to hold paint, it still makes a good planter tho.

Your point is?

and speaking of dirt why should it matter more? How could someone elected with 36 percent of the vote such as would be the case in New York or ten percent of the population like in Nevada claim any legitimacy or to be making decisions for the majority? Especially in Nevada the most extreme example of population disparity in the nation

Because it's valuable.They don't need to be representing the majority, nor do they need to claim legitimacy.

[San Lumen]

Your point is?

and speaking of dirt why should it matter more? How could someone elected with 36 percent of the vote such as would be the case in New York or ten percent of the population like in Nevada claim any legitimacy or to be making decisions for the majority? Especially in Nevada the most extreme example of population disparity in the nation

Because it's valuable.They don't need to be representing the majority, nor do they need to claim legitimacy.

So? Why should it matter more than votes?

How is ten percent of the population electing statewide officials fair or democratic? Why dont they need to claim legitimacy? I doubt a system like that would last long in Nevada.

[Telconi]

Because it's valuable.They don't need to be representing the majority, nor do they need to claim legitimacy.

So? Why should it matter more than votes?

How is ten percent of the population electing statewide officials fair or democratic? Why dont they need to claim legitimacy? I doubt a system like that would last long in Nevada.

Why does it matter if it's "fair" or "democratic"?

[The Lone Alliance]

why should they have too? Why shouldnt the amount of votes you get be all that matters ?

I take it you believe electing statewide officials by land area would be fair? Those results I showed you earlier are unfair because the Republican won more land area?

And I pointed out that direct majority rule is also unfair because the majority often uses their majority to oppress the minority.

My compromise forces a President to both be a person of the majority by popular vote and majority by EV to show that they're supported across the entire country.

No one of either party would be able to argue that the system is unfair and biased then.

Where as going one or the other would get someone claiming it's unfair.

[Pacomia]

So? Why should it matter more than votes?

How is ten percent of the population electing statewide officials fair or democratic? Why dont they need to claim legitimacy? I doubt a system like that would last long in Nevada.

Why does it matter if it's "fair" or "democratic"?

The U.S. was supposed to be a fair and democratic nation. If we’re talking about Belarus or China, I see your point. If we’re talking about the USA, though, democracy and fairness is pretty important.

[San Lumen]

why should they have too? Why shouldnt the amount of votes you get be all that matters ?

I take it you believe electing statewide officials by land area would be fair? Those results I showed you earlier are unfair because the Republican won more land area?

And I pointed out that direct majority rule is also unfair because the majority often uses their majority to oppress the minority.

My compromise forces a President to both be a person of the majority by popular vote and majority by EV to show that they're supported across the entire country.

No one of either party would be able to argue that the system is unfair and biased then.

Where as going one or the other would get someone claiming it's unfair.

I am failing to understand why land area should matter in an election. And if there if they fail to win one what happens?

A runoff? How would you not get a the same result? Throw it to congress? Each state can only have a single vote according to the constitution. Why complicate things so much and just have a popular vote like the rest of the world

Why not adopt a similar system for statewide offices?

[Telconi]

Why does it matter if it's "fair" or "democratic"?

The U.S. was supposed to be a fair and democratic nation. If we’re talking about Belarus or China, I see your point. If we’re talking about the USA, though, democracy and fairness is pretty important.

The U.S. was supposed to be a lot of things, not all of them good.

[Forsher]

Why don't you, and all those extra people from whatever blue state you're in.... Move to a red state? Bam! Problem solved. If you really do outnumber by that wide a margin you should be able to just move a couple of hundred people. With the billions that are spent on election campaigns, I think it wouldn't be that hard to do. Not bussing them in mind, but legit moving to a new state.

Check your privilege.

Not everyone can move on a whim.

And you're missing the point completely... representation regardless of geography.

[Pacomia]

The U.S. was supposed to be a fair and democratic nation. If we’re talking about Belarus or China, I see your point. If we’re talking about the USA, though, democracy and fairness is pretty important.

The U.S. was supposed to be a lot of things, not all of them good.

Ok, you can dream of your fascist American dictatorship, but this America values democracy. At least, it should. Unfortunately, seems like that’s becoming less and less important now.

[Telconi]

The U.S. was supposed to be a lot of things, not all of them good.

Ok, you can dream of your fascist American dictatorship, but this America values democracy. At least, it should. Unfortunately, seems like that’s becoming less and less important now.

It should value a lot of things that it doesn't.

[Forsher]

If we look at metropolitan areas we see it takes around the top 40 to hit 50% of the US population, and those include over half the states.

And that goes back into the city versus Rural issues.

Not really. Metropolitian areas are more accurately describe a particularly urban economy whereas urban areas are more classically urban. A lot of the metro/micropolitan area would be thought of... at least in county terms... as "rural".

Although... take the implicit point to its logical conclusion: 20% of the US population controlling 80%.

[Kowani]

Goddamn, how is this thread still a thing.

[Telconi]

Goddamn, how is this thread still a thing.

NSG continues to disagree.

[New haven america]

Goddamn, how is this thread still a thing.

Tel and San need to have at least 1 argument per thread lasting at least 2-5 pages for NSG to get ad revenue and continue operating.

[The Great Boom]

Here's how you can prove the electoral college is undemocratic: imagine a system in which 1: the senators didn't represent electoral votes, and 2: Every state's electoral votes were allocated proportionally per state according to the popular vote. This system would not always declare the same victor as the popular vote, it would just get rid of the value of senators AND ensure that no state was effectively taken for granted because it was Democrat or Republic leaning by a 10+ margin or more, like California, or Wyoming.

In this system, California's 53 electoral votes (remember, we removed Senators) would have split 35-18. A 2-1 margin. The millions of Californians who voted for Trump would receive exactly the same representation as Republicans voting for Trump in Wyoming.

The only argument that this system (which is exactly analogous to the popular vote, if you didn't pick that up yet, except that it allows a great margin of error) provides an unfair benefit to large states is that it is theoretically possible to "market" to large states, where there are more voters. The problem with that logic is that the internet exists, and media exists, and Americans don't solely unify around the identity of statehood. There is no real Californian identity when it comes to voting, at least on national issues. There is a Californian majority ideology - care for the needy, environmental protections, free thinking, etc. And when Hillary Clinton offers herself as the avatar of the Democratic ideology, she is marketing herself to 67% of Californian voters, and deliberately writing off 33%. That wouldn't be efficient, so candidates don't do this.

In swing states, under the current system, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could hold a rally in Dayton Ohio offer quid-pro-quo benefits to Ohioans if elected. But they don't. Even when an Ohioan is worth infinitely more than a useless Vermonter in a Presidential election, candidates know that there are only a few hundred, perhaps more than 1,000 at best, at the rally. But there are potentially 10,000s watching the rally, watching TV ads, and interacting with other supporters. And that's why candidates use national marketing, not state identity marketing, to sell themselves. Donald Trump didn't sell himself as the best candidate for Ohio, he sold himself as the President of the U.S. He ran on immigration, tarriffs, and a bunch of racist bullshit. But besides that, he marketed himself nationally.

There's already a massive pressure to market to state identities because of swing states, but it's so inherently inefficient that candidates still don't bother with it. If you move to a popular vote, you get rid of that pressure, and it's still just as inefficient to market to state identities. So there's even less reason to promise Californians a bunch of new environmental laws or Ohioans a new factory. They're going to keep doing national marketing and trying to turn out their bases, which means California votes compared to Wyoming votes will become more equitable, not more tilted.

Therefore, there are two reasons to retain the electoral college, 1: to enable Republicans to continue winning the White House illegitimately, 2: to give electors the legal right to rig an election if they wanted to.

The argument that the popular vote would centralize the election around big, Democratic-leaning states is fallacy so transparent, it falls apart under even the most basic inspection. Donald Trump is only able to convince 40% of Americans of this bullshit because 40% of Americans would support him if he shot a man in Times Square.

[Pacomia]

Here's how you can prove the electoral college is undemocratic: imagine a system in which 1: the senators didn't represent electoral votes, and 2: Every state's electoral votes were allocated proportionally per state according to the popular vote. This system would not always declare the same victor as the popular vote, it would just get rid of the value of senators AND ensure that no state was effectively taken for granted because it was Democrat or Republic leaning by a 10+ margin or more, like California, or Wyoming.

In this system, California's 53 electoral votes (remember, we removed Senators) would have split 35-18. A 2-1 margin. The millions of Californians who voted for Trump would receive exactly the same representation as Republicans voting for Trump in Wyoming.

The only argument that this system (which is exactly analogous to the popular vote, if you didn't pick that up yet, except that it allows a great margin of error) provides an unfair benefit to large states is that it is theoretically possible to "market" to large states, where there are more voters. The problem with that logic is that the internet exists, and media exists, and Americans don't solely unify around the identity of statehood. There is no real Californian identity when it comes to voting, at least on national issues. There is a Californian majority ideology - care for the needy, environmental protections, free thinking, etc. And when Hillary Clinton offers herself as the avatar of the Democratic ideology, she is marketing herself to 67% of Californian voters, and deliberately writing off 33%. That wouldn't be efficient, so candidates don't do this.

In swing states, under the current system, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could hold a rally in Dayton Ohio offer quid-pro-quo benefits to Ohioans if elected. But they don't. Even when an Ohioan is worth infinitely more than a useless Vermonter in a Presidential election, candidates know that there are only a few hundred, perhaps more than 1,000 at best, at the rally. But there are potentially 10,000s watching the rally, watching TV ads, and interacting with other supporters. And that's why candidates use national marketing, not state identity marketing, to sell themselves. Donald Trump didn't sell himself as the best candidate for Ohio, he sold himself as the President of the U.S. He ran on immigration, tarriffs, and a bunch of racist bullshit. But besides that, he marketed himself nationally.

There's already a massive pressure to market to state identities because of swing states, but it's so inherently inefficient that candidates still don't bother with it. If you move to a popular vote, you get rid of that pressure, and it's still just as inefficient to market to state identities. So there's even less reason to promise Californians a bunch of new environmental laws or Ohioans a new factory. They're going to keep doing national marketing and trying to turn out their bases, which means California votes compared to Wyoming votes will become more equitable, not more tilted.

Therefore, there are two reasons to retain the electoral college, 1: to enable Republicans to continue winning the White House illegitimately, 2: to give electors the legal right to rig an election if they wanted to.

The argument that the popular vote would centralize the election around big, Democratic-leaning states is fallacy so transparent, it falls apart under even the most basic inspection. Donald Trump is only able to convince 40% of Americans of this bullshit because 40% of Americans would support him if he shot a man in Times Square.

The main proponent of the EC on this thread, Telconi, has already made it clear that he doesn’t care about fairness and democracy; he prefers authoritarianism. Stop trying to argue with logic and sound reasoning, he won’t listen.

[The Lone Alliance]

And that goes back into the city versus Rural issues.

Not really. Metropolitian areas are more accurately describe a particularly urban economy whereas urban areas are more classically urban. A lot of the metro/micropolitan area would be thought of... at least in county terms... as "rural".

Although... take the implicit point to its logical conclusion: 20% of the US population controlling 80%.

They are economically tied to the cities that they're supporting because the greater metro areas of a city serve as a city's logistics, they are the location of their manpower in the sense of suburban commuters as well as some of the NIMBY things that cities need but don't exactly want inside their high value urban areas. Those areas may look rural because in many cases they were rural up until the city's growth encroached on them.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

The Electoral College should be actually used. The voters be damned, the legislatures (who were voted for by the electorate) choose the electors. They are representative of the people and are qualified to select the President.

[Pacomia]

The Electoral College should be actually used. The voters be damned, the legislatures (who were voted for by the electorate) choose the electors. They are representative of the people and are qualified to select the President.

Why? Why do there need to be so many layers in between the populace and the electors? Why not just let the general populace vote?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

The Electoral College should be actually used. The voters be damned, the legislatures (who were voted for by the electorate) choose the electors. They are representative of the people and are qualified to select the President.

Why? Why do there need to be so many layers in between the populace and the electors? Why not just let the general populace vote?

They don’t deserve to.

[Pacomia]

Why? Why do there need to be so many layers in between the populace and the electors? Why not just let the general populace vote?

They don’t deserve to.

And why is that?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

They don’t deserve to.

And why is that?

Have you talked to the average American?

[Pacomia]

And why is that?

Have you talked to the average American?

While yes, we’re dumb, this is a democracy. People should get to vote.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Have you talked to the average American?

While yes, we’re dumb, this is a democracy. People should get to vote.

we’re a republic with an electoral college

[Shofercia]

That's completely unrealistic. Let me read that again:

Without the EC, there will be an equal split where both urban Democrats and rural Republicans

Yep, still sounds dumb the second time I read it. There won't be an even split, because there are less rural people than urban people, and with every passing day, the gap continues to grow. Rural Americans are just a subset of the Republican Party, akin to Gays being a subset of the Democratic Party. As someone who's living in an urbanized area, I can tell you that most Republicans vote for the party because they feel that they're overtaxed and over regulated.

If the rural segment of the Republican Party disappears completely, or becomes so marginal that it ceases to matter, then Republicans will be forced to cut Government size every change they get, because that's the shift that their base will have. Essentially, by destroying the yeoman farmer, you'll successfully push the Republican Party's cut of services to the urban poor into overdrive. This will increase homelessness, and Democrats aren't too keen on the homeless issue; Berkeley and Venice, both heavily Democratic areas are known for treating their homeless like shit. You can't throw the rural poor into poverty without that having a ricochet effect on the urban poor; and with the lower class hurt, the middle class will need to cut taxes just to survive.

Ok, drop the “urban” and “rural” bits. I only added them because people were bitching about the rural population being ignored. All I’m saying is that removing the Electoral College won’t marginalise rural communities. I’m literally doing the research right now to see whether the Republicans will still get a say in things, and from the looks of it, they will.

Do you think that either major party would continue to give a fuck about the rural vote if it no longer matters?

It's not about that; it's about issues. With the rural poor gone, and the failure of the Clinton-Bush-Obama interventions, you'll be pushing the Republican Party into a "Big Government Bad" corner, or rather, since they're already in said corner, you'll be pushing that into overdrive. You're tallying up votes; in America's two party system, you'll prove your hypothesis, but the issues will shift yet again. How're those students doing in California - are the student loans not an issue? Now imagine if additional student aid programs were cut.

Until we stop having a two-party system, my research is valid. Besides, who the hell said anything about Californian student loans? What does this have to do with the Electoral College?

Your research doesn't take the influence of a group on the big tent ideology. Both parties, Dems and Reps, are big tent parties. In order to have a say in a big tent party, your group needs power, either in terms of money, or in terms of votes. You take away both, and few will give a fuck about your group. For instance, take the students with loans - the starting solution is so fucking simple: make student loans dischargeable through bankruptcy. It's not a full solution, but it's a start; however, since students rarely vote, and the ones with loans don't have money, even that simple solution isn't implemented.

Your research says that the Republican Party can recover from the EC's demise, and that's true. My point is that Rural America won't, and that either party isn't going to pay attention to Rural America if they have no power, no money, and very few votes.