NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:32 am**

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Trump is hardly a paragon of virtue and contemplation.

Yes, but he reflects the Republican party in general. 2012 a majority are in favor of amending the constitution, 2016 that is no longer the case. Gallup. Democrats already supported the change, and there support just increased.

Positive changes aren't a bad thing though. People used to have all kinds of beliefs that have since improved, the vast majority of Americans thought gays shouldn't marry a little over a decade ago.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:33 am**

Why no (please explain) for yes?

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:55 pm**

Duvniask wrote:
Confederate Norway wrote:No, it is our unique way of voting and I like it.

Unique in how much of an overcomplicated, antiquated piece of shit it is, perhaps.

I looked into the whole Electoral College thing and it makes no sense. Why is a voting system set up as some kind of game? It is really unnecessary and I now understand why liberals hate it.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:01 pm**

Otira wrote:Why no (please explain) for yes?

Because we all know why people who want the Electoral College to be abolished want it abolished, but we don't hear that much from people who don't want it abolished and there reasoning.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:04 pm**

The electoral college system was fine for the Pony Express era. It's outmoded now.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:34 pm**

No. As intended and discussed in the letters between the founding fathers the states different voting standards meaning a popular vote would skew results to states with loser turnout laws resulting in a race to the bottom of voters.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:47 pm**

Greed and Death wrote:No. As intended and discussed in the letters between the founding fathers the states different voting standards meaning a popular vote would skew results to states with loser turnout laws resulting in a race to the bottom of voters.

So basically universal suffrage is bad because some random guys two and a half centuries ago were afraid of the idea of black people, poor people and women voting?

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:49 pm**

Greed and Death wrote:No. As intended and discussed in the letters between the founding fathers the states different voting standards meaning a popular vote would skew results to states with loser turnout laws resulting in a race to the bottom of voters.

Congratulations, we now have near universal suffrage. Gone are the days of racial discrimination in voting, sexual discrimination in voting, or monetary discrimination in voting. About the only place where you see voting rights being restricted is for criminals, and those with restricted voting do not make up a huge percentage of the population. I see very little for the states to race to the bottom of.

Meanwhile the electoral college does mean that the Republican votes for president in California mean nothing, just as the Democrat votes in Texas mean nothing.

At the time the electoral college made sense, but we have had over 200 years of development, socially and technologically. I think we can update how we choose our president, after all we did it for senators with out causing the demise of our democracy.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:53 pm**

Vassenor wrote:
Greed and Death wrote:No. As intended and discussed in the letters between the founding fathers the states different voting standards meaning a popular vote would skew results to states with loser turnout laws resulting in a race to the bottom of voters.

So basically universal suffrage is bad because some random guys two and a half centuries ago were afraid of the idea of black people, poor people and women voting?

And it's good because some random guys two and a half minutes ago were afraid that their party might lose sometimes and they won't get to shit on the other half of America unchecked.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:53 pm**

Telconi wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
So basically universal suffrage is bad because some random guys two and a half centuries ago were afraid of the idea of black people, poor people and women voting?

And it's good because some random guys two and a half minutes ago were afraid that their party might lose sometimes and they won't get to shit on the other half of America unchecked.

Interesting how opposition to the EC predates that.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:56 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Telconi wrote:
And it's good because some random guys two and a half minutes ago were afraid that their party might lose sometimes and they won't get to shit on the other half of America unchecked.

Interesting how opposition to the EC predates that.

Not really.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:56 pm**

I think it shouldn't be abolished but should be reformed; many if not all of the thinly populated states are disproportionately important to the US because of their natural resources/economic activity/strategic location so I believe it is important to provide them with protection against being totally overruled by sheer numbers.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to assign a minimum number of votes per state that are winner-take-all, with the excess votes based on population allocated by the results of the popular vote? That would balance the concerns of less populated areas against the effective disenfranchisement of large numbers of votes in more populous solid blue/red states.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:58 pm**

Vetalia wrote:I think it shouldn't be abolished but should be reformed; many if not all of the thinly populated states are disproportionately important to the US because of their natural resources/economic activity/strategic location so I believe it is important to provide them with protection against being totally overruled by sheer numbers.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to assign a minimum number of votes per state that are winner-take-all, with the excess votes based on population allocated by the results of the popular vote? That would balance the concerns of less populated areas against the effective disenfranchisement of large numbers of votes in more populous solid blue/red states.

“Strategic location” Like what, Kansas?

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:59 pm**

Telconi wrote:
Kowani wrote:Interesting how opposition to the EC predates that.

Not really.

I mean I just linked you to a poll that shows from 2002 to 2016 the majority of Americans were for changing the constitution. It only changed when President Trump won the presidency but lost the popular vote, at which point Republicans all decided it was great because it let them "shit on the other half of America unchecked."

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:00 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Vetalia wrote:I think it shouldn't be abolished but should be reformed; many if not all of the thinly populated states are disproportionately important to the US because of their natural resources/economic activity/strategic location so I believe it is important to provide them with protection against being totally overruled by sheer numbers.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to assign a minimum number of votes per state that are winner-take-all, with the excess votes based on population allocated by the results of the popular vote? That would balance the concerns of less populated areas against the effective disenfranchisement of large numbers of votes in more populous solid blue/red states.

“Strategic location” Like what, Kansas?

Kansas is important, it's the source of over 75%of the nation's boredom.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:00 pm**

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Not really.

I mean I just linked you to a poll that shows from 2002 to 2016 the majority of Americans were for changing the constitution. It only changed when President Trump won the presidency but lost the popular vote, at which point Republicans all decided it was great because it let them "shit on the other half of America unchecked."

Sounds about right.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:01 pm**

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Not really.

I mean I just linked you to a poll that shows from 2002 to 2016 the majority of Americans were for changing the constitution. It only changed when President Trump won the presidency but lost the popular vote, at which point Republicans all decided it was great because it let them "shit on the other half of America unchecked."

Yes, I saw that, thanks for checking.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:01 pm**

Telconi wrote:
Kowani wrote:“Strategic location” Like what, Kansas?

Kansas is important, it's the source of over 75%of the nation's boredom.

I feel like you’re forgetting about Delaware.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:10 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Vetalia wrote:I think it shouldn't be abolished but should be reformed; many if not all of the thinly populated states are disproportionately important to the US because of their natural resources/economic activity/strategic location so I believe it is important to provide them with protection against being totally overruled by sheer numbers.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to assign a minimum number of votes per state that are winner-take-all, with the excess votes based on population allocated by the results of the popular vote? That would balance the concerns of less populated areas against the effective disenfranchisement of large numbers of votes in more populous solid blue/red states.

“Strategic location” Like what, Kansas?

Alaska and Hawaii come to mind.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:16 pm**

Vetalia wrote:
Kowani wrote:“Strategic location” Like what, Kansas?

Alaska and Hawaii come to mind.

You said many. 2 is not many.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:27 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Vetalia wrote:
Alaska and Hawaii come to mind.

You said many. 2 is not many.

I said they were strategically, resource-based or economically important. Not all of them are strategically important, others are economically important, e.g. North Dakota and Colorado for their oil production, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas for agriculture, Delaware for economic importance.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:32 pm**

Vetalia wrote:
Kowani wrote:You said many. 2 is not many.

I said they were strategically, resource-based or economically important. Not all of them are strategically important, others are economically important, e.g. North Dakota and Colorado for their oil production, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas for agriculture, Delaware for economic importance.

Delaware? Citation needed.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:39 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Vetalia wrote:
I said they were strategically, resource-based or economically important. Not all of them are strategically important, others are economically important, e.g. North Dakota and Colorado for their oil production, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas for agriculture, Delaware for economic importance.

Delaware? Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_ ... ration_Law

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:02 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Vetalia wrote:
I said they were strategically, resource-based or economically important. Not all of them are strategically important, others are economically important, e.g. North Dakota and Colorado for their oil production, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas for agriculture, Delaware for economic importance.

Delaware? Citation needed.

Delaware is considered a Tax haven therefore it has a lot of corporate headquarters based there.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:23 pm**

Pacomia wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Kansas is important, it's the source of over 75%of the nation's boredom.

I feel like you’re forgetting about Delaware.

Pfft. Those states don't even have a song. Private Idaho

NationStates

Should the Electoral College be abolished?