Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[The Emerald Legion]

If they had truly been trying to find the best choice on who to be President they'd still be deciding.

There is no "Best choice" that everyone could likely agree on thanks to the political situation so Trump got in because he was at least legitimate and he did get the necessary Electoral Votes.

Hence why we should just have popular vote like every other country.

Sorry but i don't consider someone who was helped to win an election by a foreign adversary legitimate. On that alone they should have put country over party and caused a constitutional crisis. The electoral college makes dirt matter more than votes and its no longer serves its purpose.

Y'know the funny thing about this? Ok, so you want the 'popular vote' to matter because your side won it?

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.

[San Lumen]

Hence why we should just have popular vote like every other country.

Sorry but i don't consider someone who was helped to win an election by a foreign adversary legitimate. On that alone they should have put country over party and caused a constitutional crisis. The electoral college makes dirt matter more than votes and its no longer serves its purpose.

Y'know the funny thing about this? Ok, so you want the 'popular vote' to matter because your side won it?

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.

Why should I have too? Why should my vote matter less than someone in Arkansas?

[Telconi]

Y'know the funny thing about this? Ok, so you want the 'popular vote' to matter because your side won it?

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.

Why should I have too? Why should my vote matter less than someone in Arkansas?

Same reason I should have to move to Montana

[San Lumen]

Why should I have too? Why should my vote matter less than someone in Arkansas?

Same reason I should have to move to Montana

I accept results of elections and respect the peaceful transfer of power.

[The Emerald Legion]

Y'know the funny thing about this? Ok, so you want the 'popular vote' to matter because your side won it?

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.

Why should I have too? Why should my vote matter less than someone in Arkansas?

Because that's how our government works. Why should you get to vote at all? Because that's how our government works. It's literally an arbitrary thing we decided to do as a nation.

[Forsher]

Er... no.



The collapse of financial institutions? Risky trading?? Bear baiting being watched exclusively by audiences disapproving of the activity???

How not?

Consider, for example, John. John's a farmer. He supports a set of policies that reward and prioritise rural "values", lifestyles and practices (e.g. he wants to be subsidised out his wazoo). John is part of a revolution which instils an autocrat who preaches these messages. Let's call them Paul.

Now... there are three things to remember about Paul. One, a real life Paul would not be subject to the constraint that his professed values are his actual values. In our hypothetical, we're assuming this out. Two, even autocrats are constrained in their ability to actually execute their professed values... which can also manifest in taking largely symbolic actions even if the autocrat could do more. I am again going to assume this out. Three, autocrats in the most perfect sense don't depend on any particular social group for support and are instead backed up by institutions, usually the army.

So, at first, Paul does things that make John happy. For instance, Paul is subsidised out the wazoo. But then, one day, Paul turns up on John's farm, shoots him and then awards John's land to Ringo, Paul's brother in law. Why? Because Paul's an autocrat and there is no mechanism whatsover that ensures Paul's interpretation of the shared political values reflects John's interpretation.

It gets worse. A couple of years later, Paul turns up and shoots Ringo because Ringo's being purged. George takes over John's farm... but doesn't get any subsidies because the butter mountain created by the subsidies has bankrupted the country (hence, the need for a purge).

It's okay, though, John's kids are still alive & living on the farm... they're literal slaves though. Because, you know, cheap labour is useful (and also the country can't afford modern farming equipment any more).

And that's with the strict assumptions that the autocrat actually shares and acts on the values that put them in charge.

[Forsher]

you just said off with democracy

The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, in fact the word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

A specious argument.

Define democracy in such a way that the US is excluded whilst including France, Germany and the UK.

You will probably also struggle to find a definition of republic that describes the electoral arrangements and logic of the US whilst excluding the UK and NZ. It will also be a non-trivial exercise to exclude parliamentary monarchies without parliamentary sovereignty, such as Australia.

The US is a democracy. Get over it.

[Thermodolia]

The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, in fact the word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Many a political scientist writhe in agony every time someone, usually a Murican, makes this utterance.

I blame our education system for that

[Thermodolia]

you just said off with democracy

The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, in fact the word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

The US is a democracy. It’s a constitutional democratic republic.

If we weren’t a democracy then you couldn’t elect your representatives and we’d be like China or the USSR or Nazi Germany all of which are constitutional republics

[Telconi]

How not?

Consider, for example, John. John's a farmer. He supports a set of policies that reward and prioritise rural "values", lifestyles and practices (e.g. he wants to be subsidised out his wazoo). John is part of a revolution which instils an autocrat who preaches these messages. Let's call them Paul.

Now... there are three things to remember about Paul. One, a real life Paul would not be subject to the constraint that his professed values are his actual values. In our hypothetical, we're assuming this out. Two, even autocrats are constrained in their ability to actually execute their professed values... which can also manifest in taking largely symbolic actions even if the autocrat could do more. I am again going to assume this out. Three, autocrats in the most perfect sense don't depend on any particular social group for support and are instead backed up by institutions, usually the army.

So, at first, Paul does things that make John happy. For instance, Paul is subsidised out the wazoo. But then, one day, Paul turns up on John's farm, shoots him and then awards John's land to Ringo, Paul's brother in law. Why? Because Paul's an autocrat and there is no mechanism whatsover that ensures Paul's interpretation of the shared political values reflects John's interpretation.

It gets worse. A couple of years later, Paul turns up and shoots Ringo because Ringo's being purged. George takes over John's farm... but doesn't get any subsidies because the butter mountain created by the subsidies has bankrupted the country (hence, the need for a purge).

It's okay, though, John's kids are still alive & living on the farm... they're literal slaves though. Because, you know, cheap labour is useful (and also the country can't afford modern farming equipment any more).

And that's with the strict assumptions that the autocrat actually shares and acts on the values that put them in charge.

TIL all autocrats shoot everyone...

[Forsher]

TIL all autocrats shoot everyone...

It doesn't matter if John's shot or not. It is merely sufficient that he is dispossessed of ownership of the farm.

And to move away from the point... did I ever say anything remotely like "all autocrats shoot everyone". Not on your life, baby.

Either be honest or don't bother posting.

[Telconi]

TIL all autocrats shoot everyone...

It doesn't matter if John's shot or not. It is merely sufficient that he is dispossessed of ownership of the farm.

And to move away from the point... did I ever say anything remotely like "all autocrats shoot everyone". Not on your life, baby.

Either be honest or don't bother posting.

You argue that autocracy is inherently bad for everyone.

[Forsher]

It doesn't matter if John's shot or not. It is merely sufficient that he is dispossessed of ownership of the farm.

And to move away from the point... did I ever say anything remotely like "all autocrats shoot everyone". Not on your life, baby.

Either be honest or don't bother posting.

You argue that autocracy is inherently bad for everyone.

Nope.

[Telconi]

You argue that autocracy is inherently bad for everyone.

Nope.

So who is autocracy good for?

[Forsher]

Nope.

So who is autocracy good for?

No-one. Even in a benevolent dictatorship, the autocrat doesn't actually grant people even that autonomy which the human condition makes possible. I like that level of autonomy. You do too... although, as has been pointed out, the differences between the values you espouse in this thread and your signature are substantial.

But that's not the statement I was trying to demonstrate before. You posit that it would be good for those who are on the autocrat's side whereas there's no particular reason to expect that to be true.

This point is most easily demonstrated by looking at purges, which are a feature of most autocracies. However I chose, instead, to use an example because I was particularly interested in highlighting the distinction between "political agreement" and "interpretative consistency".

[Telconi]

So who is autocracy good for?

No-one. Even in a benevolent dictatorship, the autocrat doesn't actually grant people even that autonomy which the human condition makes possible. I like that level of autonomy. You do too... although, as has been pointed out, the differences between the values you espouse in this thread and your signature are substantial.

But that's not the statement I was trying to demonstrate before. You posit that it would be good for those who are on the autocrat's side whereas there's no particular reason to expect that to be true.

This point is most easily demonstrated by looking at purges, which are a feature of most autocracies. However I chose, instead, to use an example because I was particularly interested in highlighting the distinction between "political agreement" and "interpretative consistency".

There's nothing inherent to an autocrat that denies any valuable autonomy.

Well sure, but the possibility of an autocrat betraying their supporters does not necessarily make an autocrat bad.

And lastly, You can't argue autocracy is hood for nobody and then honestly deny that you're arguing it's bad for everyone. These are the same.

[Forsher]

No-one. Even in a benevolent dictatorship, the autocrat doesn't actually grant people even that autonomy which the human condition makes possible. I like that level of autonomy. You do too... although, as has been pointed out, the differences between the values you espouse in this thread and your signature are substantial.

But that's not the statement I was trying to demonstrate before. You posit that it would be good for those who are on the autocrat's side whereas there's no particular reason to expect that to be true.

This point is most easily demonstrated by looking at purges, which are a feature of most autocracies. However I chose, instead, to use an example because I was particularly interested in highlighting the distinction between "political agreement" and "interpretative consistency".

There's nothing inherent to an autocrat that denies any valuable autonomy.

Well sure, but the possibility of an autocrat betraying their supporters does not necessarily make an autocrat bad.

And lastly, You can't argue autocracy is hood for nobody and then honestly deny that you're arguing it's bad for everyone. These are the same.

Here's what I was doing:

Telconi: Zoos are good for animals.
Forsher: No they're not.

Here's what you're asking me:

Telconi: Are zoos good for conservation?
Forsher: Yes

You've asked me a question which is not the same exercise as the one I set out to demonstrate and are trying to act like the answers to the two (are autocrats good for people on their side? not necessarily) different (is autocracy good for people? no) questions are about the same thing when they're just not. It doesn't work like:

Is that an apple? Yes. Is this other thing an apple? No. A-hah!

Also, even if you weren't conflating different exercises you'd be wrong wrong. "Not good" and "bad" are not synonyms. Never have been. Never will be.

Now... maybe you want to contest my characterisation of:

Because those go so much better.

For the people on the side of the autocrat they do.

As a necessary claim. That is, you're not saying something like "if you're on the side of the autocrat, you must be better off".

But that doesn't change that I have responded to that characterisation. That doesn't mean in saying "no" to this I say anything other than "you're not necessarily better off". And it certainly doesn't imply my answer to "is autocracy inherently bad" will be "yes" and nor does it imply my answer to "who is autocracy good for?" will be "no-one".

[Myrensis]

Hence why we should just have popular vote like every other country.

Sorry but i don't consider someone who was helped to win an election by a foreign adversary legitimate. On that alone they should have put country over party and caused a constitutional crisis. The electoral college makes dirt matter more than votes and its no longer serves its purpose.

Y'know the funny thing about this? Ok, so you want the 'popular vote' to matter because your side won it?

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.

You don't want the popular vote to matter because your side keeps losing it?

Why don't you, and all the other Republicans, try to actually appeal to voters outside of the "Angry white people over 50" demographic?

Not that it isn't always fun to watch Republicans whine about how unfair and undemocratic it is to suggest that they should have to do anything but pander to their rabid base, in between whining about how those terrible Democrats keep ignoring them.

[San Lumen]

Why should I have too? Why should my vote matter less than someone in Arkansas?

Because that's how our government works. Why should you get to vote at all? Because that's how our government works. It's literally an arbitrary thing we decided to do as a nation.

Yeah lets keep having a system that no longer works as it was intended and is outdated because it benefits your side. If its so great why dont we elect statewide officials not by how many ballots are cast for them but by how many counties they win?

[Czechostan]

Why should I have too? Why should my vote matter less than someone in Arkansas?

Because that's how our government works. Why should you get to vote at all? Because that's how our government works. It's literally an arbitrary thing we decided to do as a nation.

"We" decided? Who is this "we"? The Constitution was written by imperfect human beings who fully recognized the need for its amending and revision. How our government works is up to us.

[San Lumen]

Because that's how our government works. Why should you get to vote at all? Because that's how our government works. It's literally an arbitrary thing we decided to do as a nation.

"We" decided? Who is this "we"? The Constitution was written by imperfect human beings who fully recognized the need for its amending and revision. How our government works is up to us.

Yup we used to elect the President and Vice President differently. The person with the most electoral college votes became President and the runner up was VP. We changed that after the 1800 election with 12th amendment.

[Czechostan]

"We" decided? Who is this "we"? The Constitution was written by imperfect human beings who fully recognized the need for its amending and revision. How our government works is up to us.

Yup we used to elect the President and Vice President differently. The person with the most electoral college votes became President and the runner up was VP. We changed that after the 1800 election with 12th amendment.

And initially, only property-owning white males could vote.

[Page]

Hence why we should just have popular vote like every other country.

Sorry but i don't consider someone who was helped to win an election by a foreign adversary legitimate. On that alone they should have put country over party and caused a constitutional crisis. The electoral college makes dirt matter more than votes and its no longer serves its purpose.

Y'know the funny thing about this? Ok, so you want the 'popular vote' to matter because your side won it?

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.

The fact that election results could be changed by all the same people with the same vote moving to a different state is exactly why the Electoral College is bullshit.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

Yes. Electoral college dilutes the solid blues and red states and overepresents the swing states.

[Alien Overlord]

The Electoral College should only be abolished if the US will also make the transition to a proportional system or Single Transferable Vote. You can't get rid of the EC and keep First Past the Post voting. It should be an all or nothing approach.