Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[SD_Film Artists]

Yes, but you should have an ID/citizenship to vote; this is a basic thing in Europe.

[San Lumen]

Yes, but you should have an ID/citizenship to vote; this is a basic thing in Europe.

I would agree with that if it was provided for free to every registered voter.

[SD_Film Artists]

Yes, but you should have an ID/citizenship to vote; this is a basic thing in Europe.

I would agree with that if it was provided for free to every registered voter.

They'll get it free with a completed citizenship test & background check.

[Ifreann]

Remember how everyone was praising how well the electoral college worked back in the 2012 election? I know I do.

I don't. Why on Earth were people saying that? Obama won the popular vote in 2012.

---

I would agree with that if it was provided for free to every registered voter.

They'll get it free with a completed citizenship test & background check.

Making it difficult for people to vote is bad.

[SD_Film Artists]

They'll get it free with a completed citizenship test & background check.

Making it difficult for people to vote is bad.

How so? When I'm in France I don't expect to vote as I'm not yet a citizen.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

I believe our entire system of democracy should be abolished, for several reasons:

1) Because of the two-party system, voters end up voting for whom they hate the least rather than who actually represents their views. See also the spoiler effect, the better a third-party candidate does the more likely it is that the opposite side of the political spectrum wins the election. So if suddenly the Libertarian Party was winning like 20% of the vote, you can bet that the Democrats are going to win the election.

2) Most of the time our "representatives" do not represent our interests at all, but rather those of corporations and foreign nations. For example, ever since the inception of our country, the majority of the population has not favored increased immigration. Until very recently, politicians have been elected promising that they would not allow increased immigration. And what have the vast majority of those politicians done? Increased immigration. Here (if you don't believe that's credible he lists his sources on the right) you can see that despite only 24% of Americans favoring the Hart-Celler Act, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans in Congress voted for it. Strange, huh?
(Note that this is just one example and I am not trying to make a statement about immigration. Just pointing out that our representatives don't actually represent our views at all.)

3) And then, of course, there's this electoral college.

Overall, I don't even consider our system to be democratic anymore. Sure, we can vote and all, but we have close to no effect on the country whatsoever.

[San Lumen]

I believe our entire system of democracy should be abolished, for several reasons:

1) Because of the two-party system, voters end up voting for whom they hate the least rather than who actually represents their views. See also the spoiler effect, the better a third-party candidate does the more likely it is that the opposite side of the political spectrum wins the election. So if suddenly the Libertarian Party was winning like 20% of the vote, you can bet that the Democrats are going to win the election.

2) Most of the time our "representatives" do not represent our interests at all, but rather those of corporations and foreign nations. For example, ever since the inception of our country, the majority of the population has not favored increased immigration. Until very recently, politicians have been elected promising that they would not allow increased immigration. And what have the vast majority of those politicians done? Increased immigration. Here (if you don't believe that's credible he lists his sources on the right) you can see that despite only 24% of Americans favoring the Hart-Celler Act, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans in Congress voted for it. Strange, huh?
(Note that this is just one example and I am not trying to make a statement about immigration. Just pointing out that our representatives don't actually represent our views at all.)

3) And then, of course, there's this electoral college.

Overall, I don't even consider our system to be democratic anymore. Sure, we can vote and all, but we have close to no effect on the country whatsoever.

How would you reform it?

[Ifreann]

Making it difficult for people to vote is bad.

How so?

Because then people who are eligible to vote won't be able to vote, and you will have effectively taken away their right to vote.

And that's bad.

When I'm in France I don't expect to vote as I'm not yet a citizen.

Okay?

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

How would you reform it?

Personally, I no longer have faith in democracy and would prefer an autocratic state.

[Alvecia]

How would you reform it?

Personally, I no longer have faith in democracy and would prefer an autocratic state.

Because those go so much better.

[Ohioan Territory]

Yeah, simply because a majority of Electoral College advocates think it has something to do with balancing the voting power between the urban and the rural. The real intention was to keep power for the elites because the Founders feared a largely agrarian, uneducated American populace wasn't competent enough to be trusted to elect the executive. It was a buffer for that from the start and always has been.

[Greed and Death]

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.

States could lower the age to 16 to get more votes. States could mandate vote to attempt to garner more say, the list goes on in how might they attempt to game the system for more regional influence.

[Greed and Death]

Yeah, simply because a majority of Electoral College advocates think it has something to do with balancing the voting power between the urban and the rural. The real intention was to keep power for the elites because the Founders feared a largely agrarian, uneducated American populace wasn't competent enough to be trusted to elect the executive. It was a buffer for that from the start and always has been.

I may be amenable to removing the Electoral college but I want a reduction in federal taxing power and commerce clause power in exchange.

[Ohioan Territory]

Yeah, simply because a majority of Electoral College advocates think it has something to do with balancing the voting power between the urban and the rural. The real intention was to keep power for the elites because the Founders feared a largely agrarian, uneducated American populace wasn't competent enough to be trusted to elect the executive. It was a buffer for that from the start and always has been.

I may be amenable to removing the Electoral college but I want a reduction in federal taxing power and commerce clause power in exchange.

Sure, I wouldn't be against that. I think that we should be able to place that faith in the hands of Americans and get rid of the EC now, though. We're all (somewhat) educated, all generally competent. We don't need an un-elected body of people we've never heard of making the decision for us.

[San Lumen]

Yeah, simply because a majority of Electoral College advocates think it has something to do with balancing the voting power between the urban and the rural. The real intention was to keep power for the elites because the Founders feared a largely agrarian, uneducated American populace wasn't competent enough to be trusted to elect the executive. It was a buffer for that from the start and always has been.

Yes this was the primary reason it was created. To make any other suggestion as to why it was created is revisionist history.

[SD_Film Artists]

How so?

Because then people who are eligible to vote won't be able to vote, and you will have effectively taken away their right to vote.

That implies that they were eligible to vote in the first place....which they're not as they don't have citizenship. The government can't take away their vote if it wasn't even there to begin with.

And that's bad.

Upholding electoral standards is an important thing for democracy, otherwise it will lose trust with the public.

When I'm in France I don't expect to vote as I'm not yet a citizen.

Okay?

The point is that there are perfectly understandable reasons for not having a vote. When I'm in France and being not allowed to vote I don't feel oppressed or disenfranchised at all (no pun intended), it's just to be expected as I'm not currently a French citizen. It would be hypocratical to insist on citizenship in one country but then demand that I should vote in French elections just because "denying votes is bad".

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Because those go so much better.

I would rather have a strong government and secure nation than the illusion of choice and freedom.

[Telconi]

Personally, I no longer have faith in democracy and would prefer an autocratic state.

Because those go so much better.

For the people on the side of the autocrat they do.

[Bear Stearns]

Elections should be decided by what I find entertaining.

[Forsher]

Because those go so much better.

For the people on the side of the autocrat they do.

Er... no.

Elections should be decided by what I find entertaining.

The collapse of financial institutions? Risky trading?? Bear baiting being watched exclusively by audiences disapproving of the activity???

[San Lumen]

Because those go so much better.

I would rather have a strong government and secure nation than the illusion of choice and freedom.

Go ask someone from Belarus or Uzbekistan or heck even Russia how great things are there.

[Telconi]

For the people on the side of the autocrat they do.

Er... no.

Elections should be decided by what I find entertaining.

The collapse of financial institutions? Risky trading?? Bear baiting being watched exclusively by audiences disapproving of the activity???

How not?

[The Lone Alliance]

Yeah, simply because a majority of Electoral College advocates think it has something to do with balancing the voting power between the urban and the rural. The real intention was to keep power for the elites because the Founders feared a largely agrarian, uneducated American populace wasn't competent enough to be trusted to elect the executive. It was a buffer for that from the start and always has been.

Yes this was the primary reason it was created. To make any other suggestion as to why it was created is revisionist history.

The 2016 election choices were two candidates who ideally shouldn't be anywhere near public office and yet people still showed up to vote for them in the primaries and general election.

[San Lumen]

Yes this was the primary reason it was created. To make any other suggestion as to why it was created is revisionist history.

And considering the 2016 election the election choices were two candidates who ideally shouldn't be anywhere near public office...

Clinton would have been far better than Trump by a long shot. Can we please not rehash 2016 again? We were talking about the purpose of the electoral college

[The Lone Alliance]

And considering the 2016 election the election choices were two candidates who ideally shouldn't be anywhere near public office...

Clinton would have been far better than Trump by a long shot. Can we please not rehash 2016 again? We were talking about the purpose of the electoral college

If you want a President who gets impeached on their first day in office...

But fact is the electoral college in 2016 had quite a few faithless electors of people who seemed to realize that both choices for public office in 2016 were unsuited for the role of President.