Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Scardinius]

I think the electoral college was made for a reason and it serves a purpose. Those on the electoral college are elected by citizens. We put our faith in them to honor what we have decide as the majority. Often times yes, the electoral college wont go with what the majority thinks and often they do it for a reason. They are more versed in the workings of the government and of our country than most of us, they are elected to represent their state and help said state in any way possible. If the college goes against what the majority thinks then i'd assume they are doing it to the benefit of the state. Remember, you put them into their position. Your voice matters. I know a large portion of this site are left leaning and democrats and im bound to get people disagreeing with me or saying my facts are wrong, and if that's their prerogative then all the power to them. Just my two sense on the matter.

[Kowani]

I think the electoral college was made for a reason and it serves a purpose. Those on the electoral college are elected by citizens. We put our faith in them to honor what we have decide as the majority. Often times yes, the electoral college wont go with what the majority thinks and often they do it for a reason. They are more versed in the workings of the government and of our country than most of us, they are elected to represent their state and help said state in any way possible. If the college goes against what the majority thinks then i'd assume they are doing it to the benefit of the state. Remember, you put them into their position. Your voice matters. I know a large portion of this site are left leaning and democrats and im bound to get people disagreeing with me or saying my facts are wrong, and if that's their prerogative then all the power to them. Just my two sense on the matter.

Actually, most states have laws mandating that the electors vote the same way as the rest of the state.

[San Lumen]

I think the electoral college was made for a reason and it serves a purpose. Those on the electoral college are elected by citizens. We put our faith in them to honor what we have decide as the majority. Often times yes, the electoral college wont go with what the majority thinks and often they do it for a reason. They are more versed in the workings of the government and of our country than most of us, they are elected to represent their state and help said state in any way possible. If the college goes against what the majority thinks then i'd assume they are doing it to the benefit of the state. Remember, you put them into their position. Your voice matters. I know a large portion of this site are left leaning and democrats and im bound to get people disagreeing with me or saying my facts are wrong, and if that's their prerogative then all the power to them. Just my two sense on the matter.

Actually, most states have laws mandating that the electors vote the same way as the rest of the state.

Which defeats the whole purpose of the electoral college

[Forsher]

Your definition of rural vs urban is not related to electoral processes.

No, I propose a simple model. I'm saying proponents of the rural/urban divide hypothesis assume voting behaviour follows from whether or not the voter participates in a rural economy or an urban economy. I am also saying that the people who do this conflate two competing ideas of rural and urban in order to make it look like rural voters are shafted. That is, rural/urban divide theorists pretend that "living in a rural area" means being separated from "urban concerns". Clearly the level of economic integration within the USA (as based on the 2010 US Census) disputes this characterisation of the electoral question in the US.

Most people who EC supporters claim to be "ruralites shafted by urbanites" actually exist within an urban economy. In other words, urban interests are their interests.

Alright, after doing some research, of the 9 states with half of the population, 6 had a majority Democrat popular vote in the last 7 elections (every election since 1992). I guess that’s an argument for the Republican side- although there’s a shit ton of smaller states that vote majority Republican. Should I look at the other 41 states and see the results there?

If there was no electoral college the states would become completely irrelevant so looking at how the states behave isn't actually important. You could literally any other means of deciding how to chunk the US population into two halves and it would have equal relevance to the electoral calculus of presidential candidates.

It's the same issue Acliion had earlier... the EC creates meaningful geographic subdivisions not FPP.

I mean, look at the difference between those two states that split their electors up versus the other ones that use a whole bloc approach. In the former states it does matter in which county you vote in, but in the others the counties themselves aren't relevant to the final outcome. To win the whole state you could win 100% of the votes in any combination of counties that have more than 50% of the states population. That's not possible in the two that split their electors up.

[Forsher]

Nope. We're talking about geographical distributions. Ignoring the counties is therefore to ignore the conversation.

If we're talking about the distribution of people, we should probably be talking about the distribution of people, rather than county lines, which the people tend to ignore.

A San Lumen says... it's all about dirt.

You want this debate to be other than the way it is. Yours, miraculously, would actually be a healthier debate but it just isn't the reality of the conversation.

Of course, we must point out that people actually live in counties regardless of where they're physically placed on a map.

Shit. You think tens of thousands of people doesn't count as urban? Dude, you ever been to the country?

Now, if you're going to say that these places have very low population densities... maybe include those figures at the start...

I included the densities in the later part of my post. Also, counties in Nevada tend to be big, and your map showed that. So unless you failed to grasp your very own map, Forsher, you should've realized how tiny those densities were, and since you didn't, my guess is that you failed to read your own map.

No, you included densities for different counties. In fact, a totally different state...

As I pointed out initially... and as you completely ignored... the way that map works is very simple. It uses (i) a population density based approach to define urban areas and (ii) then further includes all counties whose economies are sufficiently integrated to those urban areas to define the full metro and micropolitan statistical areas.

Oh, and as I was very clear about, it does that on a... county level. In other words, it shows which counties... which subnational geopolitical entities... are part of the urban economy and which parts aren't.

It's all very simple if you pay attention to how sources are introduced and the way they're actually being used (rather than whatever nonsense you want them to be).

Actually, it's more that you completely fail to understand that I'm talking about "urban economy" not "urban". And, also, no, it doesn't ignore population difference.

Unless, the rural areas aren't differentiated on an economic basis, you're ignoring the point being made and the wider conversation to which it contributes.

I get what urban economy means, and I know how to read a map. I also get that urban economy doesn't magically apply to the entire county just because you desperately want that to be the case.

No, that's precisely what a map showing which counties are part of the urban economy does... it's literally what it shows. And this leads to the coherent claim that most of the US is part of the urban economy.

It does not, of course, allow us to count up all the populations in all the urban economy counties to tell us how many Americans are in the urban economy... but I'm not doing that. It would be interesting to know if this figure is the same as the 80/20 urban/rural stat I've seen quoted before, but I don't know that and I'm not trying to talk about it.

If I start talking about how tackles are too dangerous in rugby I do not magically start making a claim about tackles being dangerous in League or American Football.

It's called subsetting.

In LA County, urban economy doesn't apply to the Northwest portions, unless we're talking about Lancaster or Palmdale, and even there the effects aren't as developed as they are in actually urbanized areas, like Santa Monica. Urban economy has different problems and different needs than a rural economy. In an urban economy, traffic's a major issue. In a rural economy, it's the inability to generate a cluster of service jobs. Urban economies have to deal with an influx of immigration, whereas rural economies are worried about emigration. Pretending that the two are forever interlinked, just because they belong to the same county, is a phenomenally idiotic thing to do, especially when the county is huge.

Remarkably, a county which has rural and urban parts to it has to, you know, understand and deal with these issues. The county doesn't disappear as a context from peoples' lives just because it would be more sensible to make sure all counties were purely part of the urban or rural economies.

A more productive critique of that map would be to say it's economically deterministic (or political economically deterministic given the county stuff)... but rural/urban divide theorists can't do that because it would force them to make a geographically deterministic statement to rationalise supporting the EC because of a rural/urban separation. Why would, for example, the geography matter wholly to the exclusion of the economics? Surely it's got to be both... but once the answer is both the rural/urban divide disappears.*

*Assuming (a) you trust the data & work behind that map and (b) it shows geographically rural counties as part of the urban environment.

[Pacomia]

Alright, I finished tallying. In total, Democrat states have a combined population of 176,238,207, and Republican states have a combined population of 150,225,750. That’s already not much of a gap, but the largest swing states are majority Democrat, so if you don’t count swing states, the gap closes even more. Also, Clinton got under 50 percent votes in 1992 and 1996 in many states because of Ross Perot, so if you consider those states void, the gap is basically nothing. So, basically, if you went my popular vote and went by state, it wouldn’t make the political process one-sided.

[San Lumen]

Alright, I finished tallying. In total, Democrat states have a combined population of 176,238,207, and Republican states have a combined population of 150,225,750. That’s already not much of a gap, but the largest swing states are majority Democrat, so if you don’t count swing states, the gap closes even more. Also, Clinton got under 50 percent votes in 1992 and 1996 in many states because of Ross Perot, so if you consider those states void, the gap is basically nothing. So, basically, if you went my popular vote and went by state, it wouldn’t make the political process one-sided.

It would be fairer and more democratic to have popular vote only

[Kushrum]

I think the electoral college was made for a reason and it serves a purpose. Those on the electoral college are elected by citizens. We put our faith in them to honor what we have decide as the majority. Often times yes, the electoral college wont go with what the majority thinks and often they do it for a reason. They are more versed in the workings of the government and of our country than most of us, they are elected to represent their state and help said state in any way possible. If the college goes against what the majority thinks then i'd assume they are doing it to the benefit of the state. Remember, you put them into their position. Your voice matters. I know a large portion of this site are left leaning and democrats and im bound to get people disagreeing with me or saying my facts are wrong, and if that's their prerogative then all the power to them. Just my two sense on the matter.

Actually, most states have laws mandating that the electors vote the same way as the rest of the state.

I will say that i did not know about this but how many states have that law?

[San Lumen]

Actually, most states have laws mandating that the electors vote the same way as the rest of the state.

I will say that i did not know about this but how many states have that law?

a fair number and it defeats the whole purpose of the electoral college

[Kowani]

Actually, most states have laws mandating that the electors vote the same way as the rest of the state.

I will say that i did not know about this but how many states have that law?

29+ DC.

[Magocratic Aidonaia]

Not only should it be abolished, it should be replaced with a dictatorship.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Not only should it be abolished, it should be replaced with a dictatorship.

That's unconstitutional, and immoral.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Not only should it be abolished, it should be replaced with a dictatorship.

That's unconstitutional, and immoral.

Generally speaking, people who want a dictatorship in America probably don’t care much about the constitution nor what’s moral.

[Spodehaven]

This might actually be the biggest shit show I have ever seen in all my years on ns. Never have I seen so many people peddle arguments lacking even a shred of logic. The number of times the words "The electoral college benefits me, so we should keep it" have been said as if that is a valid reason for it blows my mind.

[Imperium of Dragonia]

Remember how everyone was praising how well the electoral college worked back in the 2012 election? I know I do.
Remember how everyone was pushing for it's abolition after the 2016 election? I know I do.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's unconstitutional, and immoral.

Generally speaking, people who want a dictatorship in America probably don’t care much about the constitution nor what’s moral.

Well they should.

[Neanderthaland]

Remember how everyone was praising how well the electoral college worked back in the 2012 election? I know I do.
Remember how everyone was pushing for it's abolition after the 2016 election? I know I do.

No. Because no one cared. Obama would have won without it.

[Forsher]

Remember how everyone was praising how well the electoral college worked back in the 2012 election? I know I do.
Remember how everyone was pushing for it's abolition after the 2016 election? I know I do.

The Electoral College has always been unpopular. And in 2012 it did nothing. What would there have been to praise? The absence of "faithless" electors?

[Page]

I think the electoral college was made for a reason and it serves a purpose. Those on the electoral college are elected by citizens. We put our faith in them to honor what we have decide as the majority. Often times yes, the electoral college wont go with what the majority thinks and often they do it for a reason. They are more versed in the workings of the government and of our country than most of us, they are elected to represent their state and help said state in any way possible. If the college goes against what the majority thinks then i'd assume they are doing it to the benefit of the state. Remember, you put them into their position. Your voice matters. I know a large portion of this site are left leaning and democrats and im bound to get people disagreeing with me or saying my facts are wrong, and if that's their prerogative then all the power to them. Just my two sense on the matter.

Electors are not chosen on merit and we the people absolutely did not put them in their position.

[Telconi]

This might actually be the biggest shit show I have ever seen in all my years on ns. Never have I seen so many people peddle arguments lacking even a shred of logic. The number of times the words "The electoral college benefits me, so we should keep it" have been said as if that is a valid reason for it blows my mind.

I'm pretty sure self benefit is a pretty logical reason to do a thing. It's why I eat, why I turn my air conditioning on, why I buy comfortable clothes and furniture, so on and so forth.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

This might actually be the biggest shit show I have ever seen in all my years on ns. Never have I seen so many people peddle arguments lacking even a shred of logic. The number of times the words "The electoral college benefits me, so we should keep it" have been said as if that is a valid reason for it blows my mind.

I'm pretty sure self benefit is a pretty logical reason to do a thing. It's why I eat, why I turn my air conditioning on, why I buy comfortable clothes and furniture, so on and so forth.

"It benefits me, so it's good." Is a good attitude for self-care, but not necessarily a good attitude for national policy.

[New haven america]

Remember how everyone was praising how well the electoral college worked back in the 2012 election? I know I do.
Remember how everyone was pushing for it's abolition after the 2016 election? I know I do.

No, because the President who won the EC also won the PV.

Actually, Trump was calling the Electoral College (The system he used to win) a disaster for democracy around that time.

[The New American Age]

No one cares about the slave states not being put on an equal footing, which was why they were given it in the first place - their contribution to the economy.

The United States is not a union of states anymore, and has not been for a long, long time.

[Telconi]

No one cares about the slave states not being put on an equal footing, which was why they were given it in the first place - their contribution to the economy.

The United States is not a union of states anymore, and has not been for a long, long time.

The patchwork of different laws on practically every single subject proves this to be nonsensical.

[San Lumen]

I think the electoral college was made for a reason and it serves a purpose. Those on the electoral college are elected by citizens. We put our faith in them to honor what we have decide as the majority. Often times yes, the electoral college wont go with what the majority thinks and often they do it for a reason. They are more versed in the workings of the government and of our country than most of us, they are elected to represent their state and help said state in any way possible. If the college goes against what the majority thinks then i'd assume they are doing it to the benefit of the state. Remember, you put them into their position. Your voice matters. I know a large portion of this site are left leaning and democrats and im bound to get people disagreeing with me or saying my facts are wrong, and if that's their prerogative then all the power to them. Just my two sense on the matter.

Electors are not chosen on merit and we the people absolutely did not put them in their position.

They are chosen for their loyalty to the party. The electoral college was also meant as a check on the people so they didnt elect someone unqualified or unfit to be President. But now that people are chosen for their unwavering loyalty who would vote for a racist or someone advocated sexual assault because they are famous defeats the whole point of the electoral college