Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Tyranny by Majority. Without the EC California and New York City Elect the president. No one else has any representation at all really. (look at population if you don't believe me). That means that the majority always rules. You can't see anything wrong with the majority (who are all mostly urbanites) always picking the nation's leader?

You have presupposed that tyranny of the majority is possible to answer a question that follows: how is tyranny of the majority possible.

Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Also, you're wrong. 20% of the US population is rural. You would, to beat 50%, therefore need more than 62.5% of the Urban Vote to win. Which, by the way, includes a lot of places with populations well under 1 million.

As you say... look at a map.

I never said that the majority still shouldn't be the one to elect the president. You are still gonna have to win Urban Areas to take the day. But it shouldn't be that the only people who get a say are Urban areas. That would be like if I said that the only people who get to vote are White people. It would be awful and unfair. You just can't get that.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

To the people that are arguing that getting rid of the electoral college will give too much power to the cities:

And with the electoral college, too much power is given to the mixed urban-rural swing states. No matter what system we have, somebody’s going to get swept under the rug, it’s just a matter of who.

Better to take a little power away from the Urban areas then have rural areas get swept so far under the rug you cant hear them scream.

[Pacomia]

Also, without the electoral college, Democrats still wouldn’t win every time. Of these 9 states with half of the population, 6 voted Republican in the last election.

Besides, look at how things are now. The popular vote still votes Republican about as much as it votes Democrat. The rural areas, which happen to be overwhelming Republican and is where a huge chunk of Republicans are, are still getting votes in. It’s really not as much of a problem as some people are making it out to be. Yes, maybe there will be Democratic presidents slightly more often that before. Still, it won’t be Democratic every time.

[Hakons]

Yes. It's an affront to democracy.

Well, we are a republic after all

I know that can be annoying, but that's an important distinction. We're not a popular democracy. We don't have national elections. It's undemocratic by design, because the popular vote doesn't actually mean anything. The President is elected by separate elections in the states. The states then vote for the President their state residents voted for, and these results are combined to hopefully form a majority. This is the republican form of government that is fundamental to the American system.

[Telconi]

Who checks that SCOTUS decisions are acceptably close to the meaning of the questioned constitutional power?

Is this going to be another of these "if people don't do their jobs right we'll have a tyranny of the majority" arguments? Because, yeah, again, that's just plain tyranny... not tyranny of the majority.

You know the answer is SCOTUS... and you know the answer, when it's not, is Congress (can't remember which house has the impeachment power)... and you know the answer, in the sense of checking to see if they can do the job right, is the Senate. All of which are, we assume, controlled by the same people.

But, again... if they're not doing their job properly it's not tyranny of the majority but plain ordinary tyranny. No-one is disputing that that is possible. What is disputed is the theoretical possibility of tyranny of the majority in the context of the US. (I would, assume, you accept that it's not practically possible?)

"Just plain tyranny" but orchestrated by the majority...

Huh, if only there was a better way to express this...

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

(Image)

Also, without the electoral college, Democrats still wouldn’t win every time. Of these 9 states with half of the population, 6 voted Republican in the last election.

and with the electoral college Republicans don't win every time. We have a system. It works. Why abolish it?

"we godda abolish the EC because Hillary lost and Republicans evil and because CNN told me so"
I don't believe that is many people's mindset but please don't prove me wrong.

[Pacomia]

(Image)

Also, without the electoral college, Democrats still wouldn’t win every time. Of these 9 states with half of the population, 6 voted Republican in the last election.

and with the electoral college Republicans don't win every time. We have a system. It works. Why abolish it?

"we godda abolish the EC because Hillary lost and Republicans evil and because CNN told me so"
I don't believe that is many people's mindset but please don't prove me wrong.

Yeah, it’s not. It just happens to undermine democracy. My opinions on the Electoral College has little to do with my ideological interests. I just think it’s undemocratic.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

and with the electoral college Republicans don't win every time. We have a system. It works. Why abolish it?

"we godda abolish the EC because Hillary lost and Republicans evil and because CNN told me so"
I don't believe that is many people's mindset but please don't prove me wrong.

Yeah, it’s not. It just happens to undermine democracy.

I what way?
And don't deflect the question.

[Pacomia]

Yeah, it’s not. It just happens to undermine democracy.

I what way?
And don't deflect the question.

Simple. 1 person doesn’t get 1 vote. I feel like that’s a big factor of true democracy.

[Forsher]

The family I referenced refers to my immediate family, myself, my wife, our child.

An arbitrary restriction of interests. To rationalise the inclusion of your child you must include your parents.

I am saying something is true and it is established that that is true.

No, you're really not.

And if you think it's an established truth that the US is not an oligarchy... what rock have you been living under?

If I say that the sky isn't red, someone has to prove that it is red for me to be wrong. The claims aren't on equal footing and you aren't getting that.

No, you're not getting that you haven't actually made this kind of claim.

The sky, for example, need not actually have a colour. The US must, on the other hand, be have some kind of socio-political organisation.

What I am saying is a fundamentally held fact.

Facts.

Oh my God.

Consider, for example, falsifiability:

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement, which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation.[1][2]

Hey, look, it works by literally the opposite principles.

Them: The US is not an Oligarchy.

You: Okay, right, I've got to falsify this...

Of course, they really should have defined what an Oligarchy means

Notice, also, how there's a criticisms section in the article? That's because it's an actual philosophical position about finding truth rather than merely the way in which courts order their proceedings, which are literally equivalent to the rules of baseball.

[Telconi]

The family I referenced refers to my immediate family, myself, my wife, our child.

An arbitrary restriction of interests. To rationalise the inclusion of your child you must include your parents.

I am saying something is true and it is established that that is true.

No, you're really not.

And if you think it's an established truth that the US is not an oligarchy... what rock have you been living under?

If I say that the sky isn't red, someone has to prove that it is red for me to be wrong. The claims aren't on equal footing and you aren't getting that.

No, you're not getting that you haven't actually made this kind of claim.

The sky, for example, need not actually have a colour. The US must, on the other hand, be have some kind of socio-political organisation.

What I am saying is a fundamentally held fact.

Facts.

Oh my God.

Consider, for example, falsifiability:

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement, which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation.[1][2]

Hey, look, it works by literally the opposite principles.

Them: The US is not an Oligarchy.

You: Okay, right, I've got to falsify this...

Of course, they really should have defined what an Oligarchy means

Notice, also, how there's a criticisms section in the article? That's because it's an actual philosophical position about finding truth rather than merely the way in which courts order their proceedings, which are literally equivalent to the rules of baseball.

I am not responsible for the well being of my parents.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

I what way?
And don't deflect the question.

Simple. 1 person doesn’t get 1 vote. I feel like that’s a big factor of true democracy.

Not really. Direct votes aren't that common and when they do exist it is usually on a much smaller scale, city council, etc. Perhaps in a pure democratic state 1 would be necessary but I don't think there has ever been a 100% democratic state. Nor do I think there should be. 1 person doesn't get one vote because it would result in a bunch of people effectively not getting any votes. Or you could use the EC where pretty much your vote is almost proportional. Things have just been changed up a tiny bit to give some people a slightly better fighting chance. That is the type of democracy I want to liv sin and it is the democracy our founding fathers planned.

[Pacomia]

Simple. 1 person doesn’t get 1 vote. I feel like that’s a big factor of true democracy.

Not really. Direct votes aren't that common and when they do exist it is usually on a much smaller scale, city council, etc. Perhaps in a pure democratic state 1 would be necessary but I don't think there has ever been a 100% democratic state. Nor do I think there should be. 1 person doesn't get one vote because it would result in a bunch of people effectively not getting any votes. Or you could use the EC where pretty much your vote is almost proportional. Things have just been changed up a tiny bit to give some people a slightly better fighting chance. That is the type of democracy I want to liv sin and it is the democracy our founding fathers planned.

Read my above post with the map. I edited it.

[Pacomia]

Simple. 1 person doesn’t get 1 vote. I feel like that’s a big factor of true democracy.

Not really. Direct votes aren't that common and when they do exist it is usually on a much smaller scale, city council, etc. Perhaps in a pure democratic state 1 would be necessary but I don't think there has ever been a 100% democratic state. Nor do I think there should be. 1 person doesn't get one vote because it would result in a bunch of people effectively not getting any votes. Or you could use the EC where pretty much your vote is almost proportional. Things have just been changed up a tiny bit to give some people a slightly better fighting chance. That is the type of democracy I want to liv sin and it is the democracy our founding fathers planned.

So... a certain group gains more power at the expense of everyone else. Sounds a bit like an oligarchy to me...

[Forsher]

You have presupposed that tyranny of the majority is possible to answer a question that follows: how is tyranny of the majority possible.

Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Also, you're wrong. 20% of the US population is rural. You would, to beat 50%, therefore need more than 62.5% of the Urban Vote to win. Which, by the way, includes a lot of places with populations well under 1 million.

As you say... look at a map.

I never said that the majority still shouldn't be the one to elect the president. You are still gonna have to win Urban Areas to take the day. But it shouldn't be that the only people who get a say are Urban areas. That would be like if I said that the only people who get to vote are White people. It would be awful and unfair. You just can't get that.

And I have not claimed that you said such a thing.

Answer the question: how is a tyranny of the majority even possible in the context of the US?

"Just plain tyranny" but orchestrated by the majority...

Huh, if only there was a better way to express this...

Yeah, no.

It's not tyrannical because they're the majority... it's tyrannical because they're corrupt, incompetent or, you know, tyrannical.

It would be exactly the same kind of tyranny as if SCOTUS was controlled by some other set of partisan interests and everything else was controlled by a different partisan interest.

Of course, you could say, "But Forsher, that only works because SCOTUS has a majority within it" but it seems a complete nonsense in the context of "everyone else disagrees with them".

Tyranny of the Majority is about a properly functioning system behaving at the costs of the minority simply because they do not share the interests of the majority. It is not about a malfunctioning system rewarding majority interests at the expense of the minority, which is ordinary tyranny.

If you dispute this conception of the term, the place to do so was at the start when I initially made it:

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.

Don't shift the goalposts.

[Forsher]

I am not responsible for the well being of my parents.

Why not?

And more to the point... why are you responsible for the wellbeing of your wife? Your child? Your own self?

[Telconi]

I am not responsible for the well being of my parents.

Why not?

They're responsible for themselves.

[Forsher]

Why not?

They're responsible for themselves.

Why?

And more to the point... why are you responsible for the wellbeing of your wife? Your child? Your own self?

[Bear Stearns]

Given that everyone knows the electoral ramifications of abolishing the EC, and given that the divide is purely partisan, why don't we just break up the United States?

[Pacomia]

Given that everyone knows the electoral ramifications of abolishing the EC, and given that the divide is purely partisan, why don't we just break up the United States?

G O O D
I D E A

[Telconi]

They're responsible for themselves.

Why?

And more to the point... why are you responsible for the wellbeing of your wife? Your child? Your own self?

Because they are.

Because I am.

These things are self evident.

[Telconi]

Given that everyone knows the electoral ramifications of abolishing the EC, and given that the divide is purely partisan, why don't we just break up the United States?

Will the half filled with decent human beings accept refugees?

[Pacomia]

Why?

And more to the point... why are you responsible for the wellbeing of your wife? Your child? Your own self?

Because they are.

Because I am.

These things are self evident.

I’m really tempted to ask how they are, but that’s not the point of the thread. Can we go back to talking about the Electoral College.

[Forsher]

Why?

And more to the point... why are you responsible for the wellbeing of your wife? Your child? Your own self?

Because they are.

Because I am.

These things are self evident.

They're really not and you know it.

[Bear Stearns]

Given that everyone knows the electoral ramifications of abolishing the EC, and given that the divide is purely partisan, why don't we just break up the United States?

Will the half filled with decent human beings accept refugees?

The parts of the former US that want refugees can accept them, the ones that don't want them don't have to.