Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Telconi]

I meant to say Unfair cause I do believe it's unfair. Undemocratic doesn't even fit the term anyway.

Why therefore would electing statewide offices by how many counties they win be a good system?

That's not how the electoral college works tho...

[San Lumen]

Why therefore would electing statewide offices by how many counties they win be a good system?

That's not how the electoral college works tho...

I am aware. We were discussing how it might work for statewide elections and how it would be unfair and undemocratic

[Telconi]

That's not how the electoral college works tho...

I am aware. We were discussing how it might work for statewide elections and how it would be unfair and undemocratic

But that's not how it would work in statewide elections, the president doesn't win by winning more states...

[The Lone Alliance]

I meant to say Unfair cause I do believe it's unfair. Undemocratic doesn't even fit the term anyway.

Why therefore would electing statewide offices by how many counties they win be a good system?

They're both flawed.

[San Lumen]

Why therefore would electing statewide offices by how many counties they win be a good system?

They're both flawed.

What’s your solution? How is it fair for someone to win nationally by three million and not be elected?

[Telconi]

They're both flawed.

What’s your solution? How is it fair for someone to win nationally by three million and not be elected?

Because the rules apply equally. That's the definition of fairness.

[The Lone Alliance]

They're both flawed.

What’s your solution? How is it fair for someone to win nationally by three million and not be elected?

Could have it that the president has to win both the popular vote and the electoral vote?

That would provide a check and balance against a simple popular vote election.

[Pacomia]

What’s your solution? How is it fair for someone to win nationally by three million and not be elected?

Could have it that the president has to win both the popular vote and the electoral vote?

That would provide a check and balance against a simple popular vote election.

But what someone only wins 1? Then what happens?

[Telconi]

Could have it that the president has to win both the popular vote and the electoral vote?

That would provide a check and balance against a simple popular vote election.

But what someone only wins 1? Then what happens?

The house decides.

[The Lone Alliance]

Could have it that the president has to win both the popular vote and the electoral vote?

That would provide a check and balance against a simple popular vote election.

But what someone only wins 1? Then what happens?

There lies the rub, what to do then?

Possible that a run off election due to an unclear majority, especially when the vote difference is so narrow like it was in 2016.

[Spirit of Hope]

What’s your solution? How is it fair for someone to win nationally by three million and not be elected?

Because the rules apply equally. That's the definition of fairness.

If the rules give one side an advantage that isn't fair.

What’s your solution? How is it fair for someone to win nationally by three million and not be elected?

Could have it that the president has to win both the popular vote and the electoral vote?

That would provide a check and balance against a simple popular vote election.

And what happens when you win one and not the other? The electoral college wasn't designed to protect rural interests, or even to act as it is now used.

If the most people vote for someone, how is it undemocratic that they win? If you have a problem with more people voting for one side causing that side to win, then you have a problem with how democracies operate at a fundamental level. We can work against the problem of the majority being tyrannical against the minority by putting in place checks and balances, like separate houses, executives, judiciary and a fundamental statement of rights. All of which the US has, and balance against a popularly elected president.

I meant to say Unfair cause I do believe it's unfair. Undemocratic doesn't even fit the term anyway.

I would hardly say it is unfair that the person who gets the most votes win. The Senate ensures that small states are represented equally with large states, and the House represents roughly equally populated geographic regions. The courts ensure that the laws are obeyed and the constitution protects people's core rights.

[Telconi]

Because the rules apply equally. That's the definition of fairness.

If the rules give one side an advantage that isn't fair.

Could have it that the president has to win both the popular vote and the electoral vote?

That would provide a check and balance against a simple popular vote election.

And what happens when you win one and not the other? The electoral college wasn't designed to protect rural interests, or even to act as it is now used.

I meant to say Unfair cause I do believe it's unfair. Undemocratic doesn't even fit the term anyway.

I would hardly say it is unfair that the person who gets the most votes win. The Senate ensures that small states are represented equally with large states, and the House represents roughly equally populated geographic regions. The courts ensure that the laws are obeyed and the constitution protects people's core rights.

The rules don't give one side an advantage. The one side gives itself an advantage by playing to the rules.

Those super powerful turbo voters in Wyoming and North Dakota are as much capable of checking the D box as the R box.

[San Lumen]

But what someone only wins 1? Then what happens?

There lies the rub, what to do then?

Possible that a run off election due to an unclear majority, especially when the vote difference is so narrow like it was in 2016.

Or how about just the person with the most votes wins? Thats how democracy works. Three million votes is hardly narrow.

[Telconi]

There lies the rub, what to do then?

Possible that a run off election due to an unclear majority, especially when the vote difference is so narrow like it was in 2016.

Or how about just the person with the most votes wins? Thats how democracy works. Three million votes is hardly narrow.

And here I thought America was a democracy...

[San Lumen]

Or how about just the person with the most votes wins? Thats how democracy works. Three million votes is hardly narrow.

And here I thought America was a democracy...

It is. You simply don't like that your side doesn't always win. You've made your distain for free and fair elections, everyone being able to vote and democracy itself quite clear.

[Telconi]

And here I thought America was a democracy...

It is. You simply don't like that your side doesn't always win. You've made your distain for free and fair elections, everyone being able to vote and democracy itself quite clear.

And yet you feel the need to tell everyone about it every time I post. Why would you do that if it's so clear?

[San Lumen]

It is. You simply don't like that your side doesn't always win. You've made your distain for free and fair elections, everyone being able to vote and democracy itself quite clear.

And yet you feel the need to tell everyone about it every time I post. Why would you do that if it's so clear?

You also said the peaceful transfer of power shouldnt be respected either.

[Telconi]

And yet you feel the need to tell everyone about it every time I post. Why would you do that if it's so clear?

You also said the peaceful transfer of power shouldnt be respected either.

Uh huh, and?

[The Lone Alliance]

There lies the rub, what to do then?

Possible that a run off election due to an unclear majority, especially when the vote difference is so narrow like it was in 2016.

Or how about just the person with the most votes wins? Thats how democracy works. Three million votes is hardly narrow.

Or we can keep the existing system and the popular vote doesn't matter at all.

It's called a compromise.

You also said the peaceful transfer of power shouldnt be respected either.

Didn't you want a constitutional crisis?

[San Lumen]

Or how about just the person with the most votes wins? Thats how democracy works. Three million votes is hardly narrow.

Or we can keep the existing system and the popular vote doesn't matter at all.

It's called a compromise.

You also said the peaceful transfer of power shouldnt be respected either.

Didn't you want a constitutional crisis?

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast? Why not elect statewide officials by land area won and not votes received?

The so called constitutional crisis would have been the electoral college doing its job. It no longer serves its purpose and gives land area more weight then votes. That is not what it was intended for. it was created as a check on the people and to say anything otherwise is revisionist history.

[The Lone Alliance]

Or we can keep the existing system and the popular vote doesn't matter at all.

It's called a compromise.


Didn't you want a constitutional crisis?

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast? Why not elect statewide officials by land area won and not votes received?

The so called constitutional crisis would have been the electoral college doing its job. It no longer serves its purpose and gives land area more weight then votes. That is not what it was intended for. it was created as a check on the people and to say anything otherwise is revisionist history.

In this case it would require both systems.

Do you really believe that it'd be impossible for any Presidential Candidate to win both the electoral vote and the popular vote?

Considering that's the vast majority of how elections have been won in this country?

[Telconi]

Or we can keep the existing system and the popular vote doesn't matter at all.

It's called a compromise.


Didn't you want a constitutional crisis?

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast? Why not elect statewide officials by land area won and not votes received?

The so called constitutional crisis would have been the electoral college doing its job. It no longer serves its purpose and gives land area more weight then votes. That is not what it was intended for. it was created as a check on the people and to say anything otherwise is revisionist history.

We should tbh.

It still serves it's purpose, that purpose isn't the purpose for which it was originally created.

My wife has a planter on our porch that's an old paint bucket, it is serving it's purpose right now, as a planter, irregardless of it's original creation as a paint bucket.

[San Lumen]

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast? Why not elect statewide officials by land area won and not votes received?

The so called constitutional crisis would have been the electoral college doing its job. It no longer serves its purpose and gives land area more weight then votes. That is not what it was intended for. it was created as a check on the people and to say anything otherwise is revisionist history.

In this case it would require both systems.

"Dirt" as you say it alone wouldn't be enough to win an election, and "People" wouldn't be enough to win an election, you'd require "Dirt" and "People".

Do you really believe that it'd be impossible for any Presidental Candidate to win both the electoral vote and the popular vote?

Considering that's the vast majority of how elections have been won in this country?

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?

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast? Why not elect statewide officials by land area won and not votes received?

The so called constitutional crisis would have been the electoral college doing its job. It no longer serves its purpose and gives land area more weight then votes. That is not what it was intended for. it was created as a check on the people and to say anything otherwise is revisionist history.

We should tbh.

It still serves it's purpose, that purpose isn't the purpose for which it was originally created.

My wife has a planter on our porch that's an old paint bucket, it is serving it's purpose right now, as a planter, irregardless of it's original creation as a paint bucket.

Yes it is the reason it was created. It was not created so land area mattered more than votes. You did not have the urbanization in 1789 you do today.

[Telconi]

In this case it would require both systems.

"Dirt" as you say it alone wouldn't be enough to win an election, and "People" wouldn't be enough to win an election, you'd require "Dirt" and "People".

Do you really believe that it'd be impossible for any Presidental Candidate to win both the electoral vote and the popular vote?

Considering that's the vast majority of how elections have been won in this country?

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?

We should tbh.

It still serves it's purpose, that purpose isn't the purpose for which it was originally created.

My wife has a planter on our porch that's an old paint bucket, it is serving it's purpose right now, as a planter, irregardless of it's original creation as a paint bucket.

Yes it is the reason it was created. It was not created so land area mattered more than votes. You did not have the urbanization in 1789 you do today.

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

[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?

Yes it is the reason it was created. It was not created so land area mattered more than votes. You did not have the urbanization in 1789 you do today.

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