Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Pacomia]

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.

Agreed.

[Page]

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.

Proportional and STV are definitely better than FPTP, but even FPTP without the Electoral College is an improvement.

[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.

Proportional and STV are definitely better than FPTP, but even FPTP without the Electoral College is an improvement.

My concern relates to the difficulty of passing constitutional amendments-making a small concession to get rid of the Electoral College without reforming from FPTP may lead to a situation where we go another 20-100 years before we finally do take that major step away from FPTP. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to just get rid of both systems with a single, more radical amendment?

[The Lone Alliance]

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

Swing states are in a constant state of political compromise and evolution of politics and policy and provide the best example at showing how to effectively rule the country without completely screwing over one side to the point that the country collapses.

[Ifreann]

How?

I am aware.

Uh, by giving each state electors based upon the combined total of representatives and senators...

That doesn't increase the relative political power of rural votes. It increases the relative political power of votes in some states.

---

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. You elect your federal legislators. You elect your state legislators. You elect your governors. You elect mayors. You elect local councils. You elect judges. You elect sheriffs. You elect attorneys general. You elect coroners. That you elect your president in a stupid and convoluted way doesn't make your country not a democracy.

[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.

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.

Not really. If 51% of the country lived in Nebraska, and then used that power to constantly elect Nebraskans President, who then proceeded to malign literally every other states residents.... That would be a problem.

The Electoral college ensures that every state has a say. You having to move there and take the lumps you want to Dole out to them isn't messed up. It's Justice.

[San Lumen]

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.

Not really. If 51% of the country lived in Nebraska, and then used that power to constantly elect Nebraskans President, who then proceeded to malign literally every other states residents.... That would be a problem.

The Electoral college ensures that every state has a say. You having to move there and take the lumps you want to Dole out to them isn't messed up. It's Justice.

That is not why it was created. Stop revising history to suit your narrative. It was created as a check on the people not to give dirt more votes then people

If the electoral college is so great why don’t we elect statewide offices not by how many votes they get but by how many counties they win?

[The Lone Alliance]

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.

What's funny is a bunch of people suggested that after 2016 in words that almost made it sound like they were Christian Missionaries going into 19th century Africa to bring civilization to the masses.

[Bear Stearns]

What SAT score do you need to get into Electoral College? How much do they give in scholarships? What conference is their football team in?

[Kowani]

What SAT score do you need to get into Electoral College? How much do they give in scholarships? What conference is their football team in?

You need a score of 0, they give scholarships more elusive than Kamala Harris’ healthcare plan, and their football team is in the Unopposed Conference.

[Flaxxony]

I don't think you can just dump the Electoral College in isolation. You need to get rid of the whole district system and first past the post crap. And decentralize the Federal Government and put it back in its place so you don't have people in small town America feeling like they're getting trampled.

The American Electoral College/FPTP etc. is like using a hammer to turn a screw. I can't tell you for certain whether you need a socket wrench, a screwdriver, an adjustable or a crescent wrench to screw in that screw. But I can sure tell you a hammer is the wrong tool, hands down. Almost anything is an improvement.

[The Emerald Legion]

Not really. If 51% of the country lived in Nebraska, and then used that power to constantly elect Nebraskans President, who then proceeded to malign literally every other states residents.... That would be a problem.

The Electoral college ensures that every state has a say. You having to move there and take the lumps you want to Dole out to them isn't messed up. It's Justice.

That is not why it was created. Stop revising history to suit your narrative. It was created as a check on the people not to give dirt more votes then people

If the electoral college is so great why don’t we elect statewide offices not by how many votes they get but by how many counties they win?

Great idea. We should do that. I would fucking love having an actual voice in how my state is run.

[San Lumen]

That is not why it was created. Stop revising history to suit your narrative. It was created as a check on the people not to give dirt more votes then people

If the electoral college is so great why don’t we elect statewide offices not by how many votes they get but by how many counties they win?

Great idea. We should do that. I would fucking love having an actual voice in how my state is run.

Dirt should matter more than votes?

it would be fair to you if the republican won this election despite only getting 36 percent of the vote? This is the Governor election in New York last year https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=810000

Or if the republican won this election in Nevada? The two counties the Democrat won are about 85 percent of the population of the state: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=822591

Under such a system it would effectively be a rigged election with the minority always controlling statewide offices

[The Lone Alliance]

Under such a system it would effectively be a rigged election with the minority always controlling statewide offices

Why, are you saying the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd be unable to to do anything to win over rural voters?

[Borovan entered the region as he]

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

Swing states are in a constant state of political compromise and evolution of politics and policy and provide the best example at showing how to effectively rule the country without completely screwing over one side to the point that the country collapses.

Well I still disagree with the electoral college. You can win narrowly in several swing states and effectively get all the electoral votes I'm more comfortable with popular vote

[The Lone Alliance]

Swing states are in a constant state of political compromise and evolution of politics and policy and provide the best example at showing how to effectively rule the country without completely screwing over one side to the point that the country collapses.

Well I still disagree with the electoral college. You can win narrowly in several swing states and effectively get all the electoral votes I'm more comfortable with popular vote

And that'd lead to elections being on how to appeal only to the states with the highest population and not the politically moderate swing states, it'd lead to Presidents trying to run to be either the President of California or the President of Texas.

And I do not want to see the entire US turn into Texas or California.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well I still disagree with the electoral college. You can win narrowly in several swing states and effectively get all the electoral votes I'm more comfortable with popular vote

And that'd lead to elections being on how to appeal only to the states with the highest population and not the politically moderate swing states, it'd lead to Presidents trying to run to be either the President of California or the President of Texas.

And I do not want to see the entire US turn into Texas or California.

Funny how California and Texas don't have half the US population, and they still see 40% of their population voting for different parties from the majority, and they are somehow going to control the entire popular vote.

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.

[The Lone Alliance]

And that'd lead to elections being on how to appeal only to the states with the highest population and not the politically moderate swing states, it'd lead to Presidents trying to run to be either the President of California or the President of Texas.

And I do not want to see the entire US turn into Texas or California.

Funny how California and Texas don't have half the US population, and they still see 40% of their population voting for different parties from the majority, and they are somehow going to control the entire popular vote.

They don't need to control the entire popular vote they just need enough to give them weight and they will have more weight under a popular vote.

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.

[Spirit of Hope]

Funny how California and Texas don't have half the US population, and they still see 40% of their population voting for different parties from the majority, and they are somehow going to control the entire popular vote.

They don't need to control the entire popular vote they just need enough to give them weight and they will have more weight under a popular vote.

Since they are under weighted currently, I don't see how them getting more weight is going to be the end of the US, or damage our political system in any meaningful way. California and Texas are the most powerful states by raw electoral college votes, however they are fixed in there party affiliation by first past the post. Under popular vote they would gain a little more power, but there party affiliation isn't going to change, most of California will vote Democrat, and most of Texas, Republican.

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.

Which is a problem the electoral college doesn't deal with, so the current system is a wash there. Most of the US lives in metropolitan areas, so it should be no surprise that metropolitan areas have the most electoral power. Metropolitan areas also aren't all urban areas, there quite complex.

[Telconi]

They don't need to control the entire popular vote they just need enough to give them weight and they will have more weight under a popular vote.

Since they are under weighted currently, I don't see how them getting more weight is going to be the end of the US, or damage our political system in any meaningful way. California and Texas are the most powerful states by raw electoral college votes, however they are fixed in there party affiliation by first past the post. Under popular vote they would gain a little more power, but there party affiliation isn't going to change, most of California will vote Democrat, and most of Texas, Republican.

And that goes back into the city versus Rural issues.

Which is a problem the electoral college doesn't deal with, so the current system is a wash there. Most of the US lives in metropolitan areas, so it should be no surprise that metropolitan areas have the most electoral power. Metropolitan areas also aren't all urban areas, there quite complex.

So why do you continually reference their population?

[Spirit of Hope]

Since they are under weighted currently, I don't see how them getting more weight is going to be the end of the US, or damage our political system in any meaningful way. California and Texas are the most powerful states by raw electoral college votes, however they are fixed in there party affiliation by first past the post. Under popular vote they would gain a little more power, but there party affiliation isn't going to change, most of California will vote Democrat, and most of Texas, Republican.


Which is a problem the electoral college doesn't deal with, so the current system is a wash there. Most of the US lives in metropolitan areas, so it should be no surprise that metropolitan areas have the most electoral power. Metropolitan areas also aren't all urban areas, there quite complex.

So why do you continually reference their population?

Not sure what you are asking. Metropolitan areas are "a geographical region with a relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area." Obviously portions of this area are going to be heavily urban, however parts of these areas could be suburban or even rural.

[Telconi]

So why do you continually reference their population?

Not sure what you are asking. Metropolitan areas are "a geographical region with a relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area." Obviously portions of this area are going to be heavily urban, however parts of these areas could be suburban or even rural.

Indeed, and since nobody but you has mentioned metropolitan areas, why are they important?

[The Lone Alliance]

So why do you continually reference their population?

Not sure what you are asking. Metropolitan areas are "a geographical region with a relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area." Obviously portions of this area are going to be heavily urban, however parts of these areas could be suburban or even rural.

So you're saying that under the popular vote it'd all be about chasing the metro vote instead of the swing vote?

Sounds like my same point.

[San Lumen]

Under such a system it would effectively be a rigged election with the minority always controlling statewide offices

Why, are you saying the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd be unable to to do anything to win over rural voters?

Why should ten percent of the population control statewide offices in a state like Nevada? How is that fair or democratic? Those counties are too red for any democrat to win

[Telconi]

Why, are you saying the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd be unable to to do anything to win over rural voters?

Why should ten percent of the population control statewide offices in a state like Nevada? How is that fair or democratic? Those counties are too red for any democrat to win

So why should the areas too blue for any Republican to win control statewide offices?