Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Duvniask]

Ellaborate

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

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

I swear, this statement of "they just can't stand losing!" in its various forms has to be the worst knee-jerk response imaginable to any argument against the EC.

Yes, there is a lingering bitterness among Democrats that they lost the election, perhaps in no small part due to a perceived unfairness in how the election system works, because it is stacked against them.

and they won't get to shit on the other half of America unchecked.

Okay, so what does this even mean? Does that mean the party with fewer votes (the one that won the election) gets to do it instead... how is that better?

[Telconi]

When someone loses, they try to change the rules to their benefit.

And it's good because some random guys two and a half minutes ago were afraid that their party might lose sometimes

I swear, this statement of "they just can't stand losing!" in its various forms has to be the worst knee-jerk response imaginable to any argument against the EC.

Yes, there is a lingering bitterness among Democrats that they lost the election, perhaps in no small part due to a perceived unfairness in how the election system works, because it is stacked against them.

and they won't get to shit on the other half of America unchecked.

Okay, so what does this even mean? Does that mean the party with fewer votes (the one that won the election) gets to do it instead... how is that better?

They're not shitting on me, that's how they're better.

[The Black Forrest]

But, Trump lost the popular vote.

thus the lib/dems want to change the rules.

Soooo? The debate on the legitimacy of the EC shouldn't happen?

The con/repubs couldn't change the EC when they lost. The dems won't either.

[Telconi]

thus the lib/dems want to change the rules.

Soooo? The debate on the legitimacy of the EC shouldn't happen?

The con/repubs couldn't change the EC when they lost. The dems won't either.

What's the point of discussing the legitimacy of something you can't change?

[The Black Forrest]

Soooo? The debate on the legitimacy of the EC shouldn't happen?

The con/repubs couldn't change the EC when they lost. The dems won't either.

What's the point of discussing the legitimacy of something you can't change?

Takes effort.

When it takes money and or effort most people loose interest.

[Telconi]

What's the point of discussing the legitimacy of something you can't change?

Takes effort.

When it takes money and or effort most people loose interest.

I don't see how that's an answer to the question.

[Pacomia]

I wonder if the College is going to fuck up the next election too.

[Duvniask]

I swear, this statement of "they just can't stand losing!" in its various forms has to be the worst knee-jerk response imaginable to any argument against the EC.

Yes, there is a lingering bitterness among Democrats that they lost the election, perhaps in no small part due to a perceived unfairness in how the election system works, because it is stacked against them.



Okay, so what does this even mean? Does that mean the party with fewer votes (the one that won the election) gets to do it instead... how is that better?

They're not shitting on me, that's how they're better.

If you say so, but that's not an argument for the EC, though, is it.

Why should whoever gets the ability to "shit on" you be allowed into power with a minority of the votes in the first place?

Soooo? The debate on the legitimacy of the EC shouldn't happen?

The con/repubs couldn't change the EC when they lost. The dems won't either.

What's the point of discussing the legitimacy of something you can't change?

What's the point of discussing anything? Perhaps that we expand our own understanding and see things in a new light or try and make others do the same. In other words, at least trying to think about how things could be different, and isn't that the first step in bringing about change, anyhow? Just a thought from a tired NS'er at 3 in the morning.

[The Black Forrest]

I wonder if the College is going to fuck up the next election too.

The EC isn't the sole reason donnie won.

donnie is a complete joke. He shouldn't have even made it through the primaries. Even though he did. H blew it with things like the blue wall nonsense. Add in other things like the bernie bros "I'm not voting!!!!"

[Telconi]

They're not shitting on me, that's how they're better.

If you say so, but that's not an argument for the EC, though, is it.

Why should whoever gets the ability to "shit on" you be allowed into power with a minority of the votes in the first place?

What's the point of discussing the legitimacy of something you can't change?

What's the point of discussing anything? Perhaps that we expand our own understanding and see things in a new light or making others do the same. In other words, at least making people think about how things could be different, and isn't that the first step in bringing about change, anyhow? Just a thought from a tired NS'er at 3 in the morning.

Why shouldn't they? They're a far superior option to the alternative.

[Duvniask]

If you say so, but that's not an argument for the EC, though, is it.

Why should whoever gets the ability to "shit on" you be allowed into power with a minority of the votes in the first place?



What's the point of discussing anything? Perhaps that we expand our own understanding and see things in a new light or making others do the same. In other words, at least making people think about how things could be different, and isn't that the first step in bringing about change, anyhow? Just a thought from a tired NS'er at 3 in the morning.

Why shouldn't they? They're a far superior option to the alternative.

Because what you're saying now isn't a defense of the electoral college on any grounds beyond it happens to favor my party.

[Telconi]

Why shouldn't they? They're a far superior option to the alternative.

Because what you're saying now isn't a defense of the electoral college on any grounds beyond it happens to favor my party.

Which is plenty of reason to support it.

[The Realm of Platinum]

The poll is rigged, like the Electoral College.
*sad Californian GOP noises*

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

A Note to the OP of this Thread. Your poll is mistaken. The Staus Quo is that the electoral college exists. People who agree with the existence of the electoral college can, but aren't really the ones who need to explain their position. People who want to abolish it should be the ones who explain their position.

Anyway, the simple answer is No. A direct voting system creates Tyranny by Majority. Tyranny by Majority is still Tyranny.

[The Realm of Platinum]

A Note to the OP of this Thread. Your poll is mistaken. The Staus Quo is that the electoral college exists. People who agree with the existence of the electoral college can, but aren't really the ones who need to explain their position. People who want to abolish it should be the ones who explain their position.

Anyway, the simple answer is No. A direct voting system creates Tyranny by Majority. Tyranny by Majority is still Tyranny.

Duh, better get a technocracy then

[Forsher]

Because what you're saying now isn't a defense of the electoral college on any grounds beyond it happens to favor my party.

Which is plenty of reason to support it.

No, it's not.

It's a completely arbitrary reason to support it rather than one based in the principles of your politics.

That it gives you a partisan advantage is plenty of reason to affect how you engage with the election (I have no problem with tactical voting) but if your political party's core tenet is "we should be in power" your ideology is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Imagine a natural disaster affecting rural areas and pushing Republican voters into surrounding Republican states in sufficient numbers that a solid red state turns blue based on the (miraculously) unaffected Democratic Urban Vote.

Arbitrary.

[The Realm of Platinum]

Which is plenty of reason to support it.

No, it's not.

It's a completely arbitrary reason to support it rather than one based in the principles of your politics.

That it gives you a partisan advantage is plenty of reason to affect how you engage with the election (I have no problem with tactical voting) but if your political party's core tenet is "we should be in power" your ideology is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Imagine a natural disaster affecting rural areas and pushing Republican voters into surrounding Republican states in sufficient numbers that a solid red state turns blue based on the (miraculously) unaffected Democratic Urban Vote.
oh fuck that happened
Arbitrary.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

A Note to the OP of this Thread. Your poll is mistaken. The Staus Quo is that the electoral college exists. People who agree with the existence of the electoral college can, but aren't really the ones who need to explain their position. People who want to abolish it should be the ones who explain their position.

Anyway, the simple answer is No. A direct voting system creates Tyranny by Majority. Tyranny by Majority is still Tyranny.

Duh, better get a technocracy then

In what world does abolishing the EC result in a technocracy? And... please don't say something dumb like "this world." The EC exists and it isn't a technocracy so... I guess you are mistaken.

EDIT: I am frankly shocked people are still butthurt about the 2016 elections. "Ohhh, My partly lost so it must be the fault of everything but my party. Meh." Grow up already. When Obama was in for two terms Republicans weren't trying to abolish the presidency.

[The Realm of Platinum]

Duh, better get a technocracy then

In what world does abolishing the EC result in a technocracy? And... please don't say something dumb like "this world." The EC exists and it isn't a technocracy so... I guess you are mistaken.

Well, abolish the EC and we get a democracy.
EC turns the nation into an OLIGARCHY

[Telconi]

Which is plenty of reason to support it.

No, it's not.

It's a completely arbitrary reason to support it rather than one based in the principles of your politics.

That it gives you a partisan advantage is plenty of reason to affect how you engage with the election (I have no problem with tactical voting) but if your political party's core tenet is "we should be in power" your ideology is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Imagine a natural disaster affecting rural areas and pushing Republican voters into surrounding Republican states in sufficient numbers that a solid red state turns blue based on the (miraculously) unaffected Democratic Urban Vote.

Arbitrary.

Elections aren't a game, they have real life consequences. My political philosophy is preventing me and my family from being subject to those consequences as much as possible. If you think creating a better future for my child is morally and intellectually bankrupt, then I have no reason to put any value in your idea of what constitutes such.

[Pacomia]

In what world does abolishing the EC result in a technocracy? And... please don't say something dumb like "this world." The EC exists and it isn't a technocracy so... I guess you are mistaken.

Well, abolish the EC and we get a democracy.
EC turns the nation into an OLIGARCHY

-My main point.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Well, abolish the EC and we get a democracy.
EC turns the nation into an OLIGARCHY

-My main point.

But we already have an EC. It isn't an oligarchy. Ergo, you are mistaken.

[Forsher]

A Note to the OP of this Thread. Your poll is mistaken. The Staus Quo is that the electoral college exists. People who agree with the existence of the electoral college can, but aren't really the ones who need to explain their position. People who want to abolish it should be the ones who explain their position.

Anyway, the simple answer is No. A direct voting system creates Tyranny by Majority. Tyranny by Majority is still Tyranny.

No, mate.

The OP already knows the reasoning why the EC is shite and has put that reasoning in the OP. The arguments for the EC remain unstated and need to be specifically invited.

Tyranny by Majority is a ridiculous concept.

Go on. Explain how it works in a country with an executive separated from the legislative and both in term separate from a judiciary that has the power to strike down legislation, where there are absolutely no mechanisms that ensure these three (in practice four) institutions march in lock-step.

Even if a single party controlled both legislative houses, every single state government (from top to bottom), the presidency and SCOTUS, the fact that you have a supreme constitution means you can only have tyranny if the those laws are not followed at all. Which is not tyranny by the majority but instead just ordinary tyranny. But this would never actually happen in practice.

Tyranny by Majority also doesn't really make sense, as I explained in my earlier post here, in parliamentary democracy even in the case of non-coalition government because the executive is directly responsible to the legislature.

[Pacomia]

-My main point.

But we already have an EC. It isn't an oligarchy. Ergo, you are mistaken.

Explain how not.

[Telconi]

A Note to the OP of this Thread. Your poll is mistaken. The Staus Quo is that the electoral college exists. People who agree with the existence of the electoral college can, but aren't really the ones who need to explain their position. People who want to abolish it should be the ones who explain their position.

Anyway, the simple answer is No. A direct voting system creates Tyranny by Majority. Tyranny by Majority is still Tyranny.

No, mate.

The OP already knows the reasoning why the EC is shite and has put that reasoning in the OP. The arguments for the EC remain unstated and need to be specifically invited.

Tyranny by Majority is a ridiculous concept.

Go on. Explain how it works in a country with an executive separated from the legislative and both in term separate from a judiciary that has the power to strike down legislation, where there are absolutely no mechanisms that ensure these three (in practice four) institutions march in lock-step.

Even if a single party controlled both legislative houses, every single state government (from top to bottom), the presidency and SCOTUS, the fact that you have a supreme constitution means you can only have tyranny if the those laws are not followed at all. Which is not tyranny by the majority but instead just ordinary tyranny. But this would never actually happen in practice.

Tyranny by Majority also doesn't really make sense, as I explained in my earlier post here, in parliamentary democracy even in the case of non-coalition government because the executive is directly responsible to the legislature.

The laws mean whatever SCOTUS says they mean. So yes, a party who controls SCOTUS can do whatever they want within the constitution.