Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Telconi]

They're not lies because I can't read them, they're lies because they're false.

Are you simply trying to negate everything some says to you? Your representatives have never done a single thing you agree with and never spent money on anything you agree with?

in the case of the electoral college Trump got three million less votes than Clinton. More people wanted her than him. He very would could be reelected without the popular vote again and would be the first president ever to have that distinction. Its an outdated antiqued unfair system that gives land area more worth

Well it isn't outdated.

[Pacomia]

Because he’s neither representing my interests nor the majority of the people’s interests, especially when you take into account all the mess created by FPTP.

Which wasn't the question.

Then nevermind. I misunderstood.

[San Lumen]

Are you simply trying to negate everything some says to you? Your representatives have never done a single thing you agree with and never spent money on anything you agree with?

in the case of the electoral college Trump got three million less votes than Clinton. More people wanted her than him. He very would could be reelected without the popular vote again and would be the first president ever to have that distinction. Its an outdated antiqued unfair system that gives land area more worth

Well it isn't outdated.

You didnt answer the question.

Yes it is. A vote in Wyoming shouldn't count more than a vote in New York

[Telconi]

So if I dislike the rapist buying my kid an Ice Cream cone, the only explanation is an opposition to Ice Cream?

No, I understand why you wouldn’t want a child rapist giving your kid an ice cream cone, but it’s somehow a lot harder to understand why you would want spending on something, just not if it’s being conducted by someone you don’t like, even though they use the same basic idea.

If money is just money, why is ice cream not just ice cream?

[Pacomia]

Are you simply trying to negate everything some says to you? Your representatives have never done a single thing you agree with and never spent money on anything you agree with?

in the case of the electoral college Trump got three million less votes than Clinton. More people wanted her than him. He very would could be reelected without the popular vote again and would be the first president ever to have that distinction. Its an outdated antiqued unfair system that gives land area more worth

Well it isn't outdated.

How is it not outdated? It hasn’t been changed for 200 years.

[Telconi]

Well it isn't outdated.

You didnt answer the question.

Yes it is. A vote in Wyoming shouldn't count more than a vote in New York

What question?

It still serves a purpose, see: Donald Trump

[Telconi]

Well it isn't outdated.

How is it not outdated? It hasn’t been changed for 200 years.

Because it still serves it's purpose.

[Lavan Tiri]

The issue with having this argument is that pro-EC people assume that, in a popular vote system, things will still be like they are under the EC--people don't vote, states do. Or rather, the argument that "cities will oppress rural areas"/"high-population areas will oppress low-population areas", which isn't how a popular vote would work.

Under a popular vote system, the vote of a Republican in Los Angeles will have the same power as a vote from a Democrat in rural Missouri. Because everybody's votes will be counted, individually, then geographic area won't matter as much.

[San Lumen]

You didnt answer the question.

Yes it is. A vote in Wyoming shouldn't count more than a vote in New York

What question?

It still serves a purpose, see: Donald Trump

Have your representatives never done a single thing or spent a dime on anything you agree with?

And won with a minority of the vote and could very well be reelected with a minority of the vote. How is that fair or democratic?

[Pacomia]

Are you simply trying to negate everything some says to you? Your representatives have never done a single thing you agree with and never spent money on anything you agree with?

in the case of the electoral college Trump got three million less votes than Clinton. More people wanted her than him. He very would could be reelected without the popular vote again and would be the first president ever to have that distinction. Its an outdated antiqued unfair system that gives land area more worth

Well it isn't outdated.

How is it not outdated? It hasn’t been changed for 200 years.

[Telconi]

What question?

It still serves a purpose, see: Donald Trump

Have your representatives never done a single thing or spent a dime on anything you agree with?

And won with a minority of the vote and could very well be reelected with a minority of the vote. How is that fair or democratic?

No, they have not.

It isn't.

[Lavan Tiri]

What question?

It still serves a purpose, see: Donald Trump

Have your representatives never done a single thing or spent a dime on anything you agree with?

And won with a minority of the vote and could very well be reelected with a minority of the vote. How is that fair or democratic?

Give it up. This person can't be beaten because they aren't debating. It's like throwing marshmallow fluff at a brick wall.

[Telconi]

The issue with having this argument is that pro-EC people assume that, in a popular vote system, things will still be like they are under the EC--people don't vote, states do. Or rather, the argument that "cities will oppress rural areas"/"high-population areas will oppress low-population areas", which isn't how a popular vote would work.

Under a popular vote system, the vote of a Republican in Los Angeles will have the same power as a vote from a Democrat in rural Missouri. Because everybody's votes will be counted, individually, then geographic area won't matter as much.

This is the problem.

[San Lumen]

Have your representatives never done a single thing or spent a dime on anything you agree with?

And won with a minority of the vote and could very well be reelected with a minority of the vote. How is that fair or democratic?

No, they have not.

It isn't.

You must disagree with funding education, building roads, healthcare, rail, airports, defense or anything else the state or federal government spends money on.

Why do you support the electoral college if you agree that's not fair or democratic?

What if governors and other statewide offices were elected by how many counties they win not by popular vote? Would that be fair and democratic to you?

[Pacomia]

What question?

It still serves a purpose, see: Donald Trump

Have your representatives never done a single thing or spent a dime on anything you agree with?

And won with a minority of the vote and could very well be reelected with a minority of the vote. How is that fair or democratic?

You need to drop the “fair and democratic” argument. Telconi doesn’t want things to be fair or democratic. Instead, you have to prove that the EC goes against their interests, which they don’t, so you can’t win a debate against them.

[Lavan Tiri]

The issue with having this argument is that pro-EC people assume that, in a popular vote system, things will still be like they are under the EC--people don't vote, states do. Or rather, the argument that "cities will oppress rural areas"/"high-population areas will oppress low-population areas", which isn't how a popular vote would work.

Under a popular vote system, the vote of a Republican in Los Angeles will have the same power as a vote from a Democrat in rural Missouri. Because everybody's votes will be counted, individually, then geographic area won't matter as much.

This is the problem.

Why?

[Pacomia]

This is the problem.

Why?

Because without the EC, his 1200 acres in Nebraska won’t influence his voting power anymore.

[Telconi]

No, they have not.

It isn't.

You must disagree with funding education, building roads, healthcare, rail, airports, defense or anything else the state or federal government spends money on.

Why do you support the electoral college if you agree that's not fair or democratic?

What if governors and other statewide offices were elected by how many counties they win not by popular vote? Would that be fair and democratic to you?

Because a fair and democratic system is bad.

[San Lumen]

Why?

Because then, his 1200 acres in Nebraska won’t influence his voting power anymore.

They are in rural California

[San Lumen]

You must disagree with funding education, building roads, healthcare, rail, airports, defense or anything else the state or federal government spends money on.

Why do you support the electoral college if you agree that's not fair or democratic?

What if governors and other statewide offices were elected by how many counties they win not by popular vote? Would that be fair and democratic to you?

Because a fair and democratic system is bad.

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast?

[Telconi]

Because a fair and democratic system is bad.

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast?

If that makes you people lose elections, yes.

[Lavan Tiri]

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast?

If that makes you people lose elections, yes.

I'm gonna assume you're a Republican?

[San Lumen]

Therefore dirt should matter more than ballots cast?

If that makes you people lose elections, yes.

so this about owning the libs because you dont like your outvoted in state elections and would support a state electoral college and want to be able to win a national election with less votes?

[Telconi]

If that makes you people lose elections, yes.

I'm gonna assume you're a Republican?

Generally, yes.

[Telconi]

If that makes you people lose elections, yes.

so this about owning the libs because you dont like your outvoted in state elections and want to be able to win a national election with less votes?

I mean, if we assume that defending human rights from horrible people is "owning them", then sure.