The Electoral College--Reform, Keep, or End?

[San Lumen]

How do you feel about people whom who are very unlikely to survive even a third of the elected term being allowed to vote?

Heh, sorry about that. I mean if you've been a permanent resident for 2 years you'd be allowed to vote for the House (and state offices of 2 years term). President after 4 and Senator after 6 ... years residency in the US. Which district or state shouldn't matter any more than it does for regular voters.

I'm assuming permanent residents usually stay and usually become citizens, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

So after moving you have to wait a certain number of years before you can vote in a certain election or are you only referring to immigrants? Either way I'm almost certain that would be unconstitutional

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Heh, sorry about that. I mean if you've been a permanent resident for 2 years you'd be allowed to vote for the House (and state offices of 2 years term). President after 4 and Senator after 6 ... years residency in the US. Which district or state shouldn't matter any more than it does for regular voters.

I'm assuming permanent residents usually stay and usually become citizens, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

So after moving you have to wait a certain number of years before you can vote in a certain election or are you only referring to immigrants? Either way I'm almost certain that would be unconstitutional

Yes only immigrants. And only moving into the US, movement-within wouldn't matter.

To be frank I'd rather grant full voting rights along with residency. I just don't think that would be very popular.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why would you need a national standard? Elections are run by states not the federal government

Well if California's standard allows 99% of the population to vote and Texas's standard allows 95% of the population to vote California will have influence in excess of its population defeating the whole purpose of doing away with the electoral college.

This is an advantage of doing away with the College which I hadn't really considered. State interest is to MAXIMIZE the franchise in their state. End voter suppression, and maybe even extend voting rights (eg convicts at time of release, or 16 yo's).

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I get the joke, but it's something we've discussed before.

There's a contingent election in the House to choose a new President.
But for whatever reason the House fails to choose one of the three.
So it goes to the Speaker of the House ... NO!
Because the Senate gets to pick the new Vice President.
Suppose the Senate doesn't disappear up its own hole, it picks a VP.
Inauguration day comes around and there is a VP but no President
The Vice President becomes President "when the office is vacant"
Inaugurate the winning VP candidate as the new President.

Sorry Nancy, close but no cigar

No. I mean, if we get rid of all laws forcing electors to go with the popular vote for the state, the electors are then free to vote however they wanted to.

Not all states have such laws, and some are very weak. Yet faithless electors are quite rare.

They can just ignore the election entirely and vote for the craziest dude in the list. They can even accidentally vote for the wrong guy and get away with it. Although, electors are usually appointed by the party system, who owed their position to the party, a.k.a. NancyPelosi2020.

Yes. Each party has an interest in picking reliable electors, I guess they go with long serving party volunteers, branch chairs etc.

Sure, conventions would make it unlikely, but a system equipped with a loophole that big is so hilariously and badly designed that you'll be better off by throwing it away and replace it with whatever Posadas could come up with.

The faithless electors aren't likely to have any influence at all if the US goes the Interstate Compact route. Only if the Compact only just passes and the 3 electors in a small state are necessary to the Compact partners to get to 270.

I'd prefer to ditch the whole ridiculous College but it's written into the constitution. Three quarters of the states required to change it, when more than a quarter of states get unfair extra influence with the current system. That amendment wouldn't stand a chance.

[San Lumen]

So after moving you have to wait a certain number of years before you can vote in a certain election or are you only referring to immigrants? Either way I'm almost certain that would be unconstitutional

I’m fairly certain such a law would be unconstitutional
Yes only immigrants. And only moving into the US, movement-within wouldn't matter.

To be frank I'd rather grant full voting rights along with residency. I just don't think that would be very popular.

[Northern Davincia]

Well if California's standard allows 99% of the population to vote and Texas's standard allows 95% of the population to vote California will have influence in excess of its population defeating the whole purpose of doing away with the electoral college.

This is an advantage of doing away with the College which I hadn't really considered. State interest is to MAXIMIZE the franchise in their state. End voter suppression, and maybe even extend voting rights (eg convicts at time of release, or 16 yo's).

The voting age should return to 21, in all honesty.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Yes only immigrants. And only moving into the US, movement-within wouldn't matter.

To be frank I'd rather grant full voting rights along with residency. I just don't think that would be very popular.

I’m fairly certain such a law would be unconstitutional

Well voting is always for "citizens" in the Constitution. It cannot be "denied or abridged" on the basis of several mentioned characteristics.

The constitution nowhere prohibits anyone, citizen or not, from having the vote.

That the 23rd Amendment was necessary to provide voting rights for DC (for President) does rather suggest that Congress can't just extend the vote as it sees fit. So yeah, you might be right.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This is an advantage of doing away with the College which I hadn't really considered. State interest is to MAXIMIZE the franchise in their state. End voter suppression, and maybe even extend voting rights (eg convicts at time of release, or 16 yo's).

The voting age should return to 21, in all honesty.

How about 55?

[Northern Davincia]

The voting age should return to 21, in all honesty.

How about 55?

Not a bad thought...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

How about 55?

Not a bad thought...

65 it is then. We raised it to 55 then with our new geezer mandate we raised it again.

Now for some legislation. First we're going to triple the Social Security tax ...

[Northern Davincia]

Not a bad thought...

65 it is then. We raised it to 55 then with our new geezer mandate we raised it again.

Now for some legislation. First we're going to triple the Social Security tax ...

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Not a bad thought...

65 it is then. We raised it to 55 then with our new geezer mandate we raised it again.

Now for some legislation. First we're going to triple the Social Security tax ...

Better than debt

[The Black Forrest]

This is an advantage of doing away with the College which I hadn't really considered. State interest is to MAXIMIZE the franchise in their state. End voter suppression, and maybe even extend voting rights (eg convicts at time of release, or 16 yo's).

The voting age should return to 21, in all honesty.

Nahh. If we are willing to send 17-18 year olds to war, they should vote.

[Northern Davincia]

The voting age should return to 21, in all honesty.

Nahh. If we are willing to send 17-18 year olds to war, they should vote.

We should also not be sending kids to distant forever wars. Either the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or service and voting age must be raised to 21.

[Dominioan]

Nahh. If we are willing to send 17-18 year olds to war, they should vote.

We should also not be sending kids to distant forever wars. Either the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or service and voting age must be raised to 21.

Lower the drinking age, lower it! Americas inconsistencies are sometimes weird.

[Nuroblav]

We should also not be sending kids to distant forever wars. Either the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or service and voting age must be raised to 21.

Lower the drinking age, lower it! Americas inconsistencies are sometimes weird.

Yeah where I am I'm pretty sure it's all around the same. Can't see how you can hold enough to die in another country but too young to go to whatever their equivalent of a pub is

[Asle Leopolka]

Reform the voting process to a rank-order voting system and allocate electoral votes based on the distribution. In odd distributions, the higher percentage of votes gets the round up vs the lower percent.

EXAMPLE:
Three candidates, A, B, and C, are in a rank-order election. After it's all said and done, they land on the following percentage of available points

A: 20%
B: 50%
C: 30%

Of the 55 electoral votes in CA, Candidate A would get 11, Candidate B would get 28, and Candidate C would get 16.

[Thepeopl]

Reform the voting process to a rank-order voting system and allocate electoral votes based on the distribution. In odd distributions, the higher percentage of votes gets the round up vs the lower percent.

EXAMPLE:
Three candidates, A, B, and C, are in a rank-order election. After it's all said and done, they land on the following percentage of available points

A: 20%
B: 50%
C: 30%

Of the 55 electoral votes in CA, Candidate A would get 11, Candidate B would get 28, and Candidate C would get 16.

Also known as Borda count

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

[Asle Leopolka]

Reform the voting process to a rank-order voting system and allocate electoral votes based on the distribution. In odd distributions, the higher percentage of votes gets the round up vs the lower percent.

EXAMPLE:
Three candidates, A, B, and C, are in a rank-order election. After it's all said and done, they land on the following percentage of available points

A: 20%
B: 50%
C: 30%

Of the 55 electoral votes in CA, Candidate A would get 11, Candidate B would get 28, and Candidate C would get 16.

Also known as Borda count

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

Yup, thank you! I was drawing a blank on the name

[Major-Tom]

Lower the drinking age, lower it! Americas inconsistencies are sometimes weird.

Yeah where I am I'm pretty sure it's all around the same. Can't see how you can hold enough to die in another country but too young to go to whatever their equivalent of a pub is

A bar, though a lot of young Americans have fake IDs for that purpose.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

Yet again. Interrupting a debate here. I just think there should be a poll on this thread asking ''keep, reform or abolish''. Don't you think?

[The Republic of Fore]

And yet plenty of Americans are able to learn basic facts about their country just fine, regardless of any powerful groups. So what's the excuse for the lazy slobs who don't?

I don't think you understand my point. Lots of people know about the Kardashians, the example you gave initially, because huge efforts are expended to make that happen. By contrast, far less effort goes into educating the whole American populace. That's why there are people who know a lot about this famous family but not a lot about American geography. My reference to "filling people's brains" was just a turn of phrase, I wasn't trying to suggest that advertisements literally block people from taking on other knowledge.

And I don't consider obsessively watching reality tv reprehensible. I just think it makes you too brain dead to have the power of electing the president of the United States. Go back to your reality tv children, let the adults vote.

Despite what certain works of fiction may have lead you to believe, intelligence does not correlate with an abrasive personality. Cruelty is not a sign of intellectual superiority. You are achieving nothing by continuing to insult people.

Then maybe more people should put in their own effort to learning about American geography themselves. Not everything has to be spoon fed to people. And I'm not insulting them. It isn't an insult if It's stating a fact. If you can't handle the extremeyl simple task of learning on your own for five minutes, then to me It's a fact that you don't deserve any respect.

[Liriena]

How do you know?

Look, given how you insist on insulting that same "near half of all american adults" without really giving us any reason to think of that insult as a serious analysis, I don't expect you to give us a lot of empirical evidence or a thoughtful explanation... but at least you could keep your unproven claims in the realm of childish insults.


In order to use google in a useful, truly informative way, you first need various forms of education, though. Knowing how to use google (and having access to google in the first place) aren't inborn traits. Your privilege is showing.


So you didn't use Google Scholar? Hmmm, interesting.


I'm not "making excuses". I'm giving you plausible explanations with years of research behind them. You, on the other hand, are giving me a broadly given insult.

They are all "braindead morons", "lazy slobs", etc.

Tell me, how do you measure the level of "braindead moron" and "lazy slob" a person is? You must have googled a bunch of articles to arrive at that conclusion.

1. Ever watched watters world?

I don't get my politics from comedy skits on cable news.

I don't think people who don't even know where north korea is should have a voice in whether we bomb them. Or the same people who thought we should bomb the fictional country from aladdin.

See, but in light of that, my instinct isn't to go "well then they can't vote until further notice". My instinct is "we need to inform them better for when they do vote".

You're taking an exclusionary approach. I'm taking an inclusive approach.

2. Typing words into a search bar is something most anyone with a minimal education can do. Yes, education needs to be improved in this country. but that doesn't change that people can be responsible enoough to learn things on their own. What about all the people who had a perfectly fine education and just don't know about politics because they don't want to learn? Also is it just me, or do people who love to throw around the word privilege the most have the least room to talk?

I don't think I lack room to talk for using what is a perfectly legitimate word, however some people might use it.

And yes, ultimately it may go down to whether the person is curious and willing to learn, but I choose to err on the side of philanthropy, rather than misanthropy. We do what we can for everyone, and if some don't feel engaged or interested enough to learn, that's fine. I happen to think that, if we put some collective effort into it, a democracy can be healthy and functional and prosperous even if it has a minority of uninterested and uninformed voters.

Alternatively, making voting compulsory might also incite voters to at least pay a bit more attention to politics.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Reform the voting process to a rank-order voting system and allocate electoral votes based on the distribution. In odd distributions, the higher percentage of votes gets the round up vs the lower percent.

EXAMPLE:
Three candidates, A, B, and C, are in a rank-order election. After it's all said and done, they land on the following percentage of available points

A: 20%
B: 50%
C: 30%

Of the 55 electoral votes in CA, Candidate A would get 11, Candidate B would get 28, and Candidate C would get 16.

You used as an example the one state where it would work best. Smaller states can't divide their electors as finely so they don't approximate the popular vote as well.

No solution for that besides constitutional amendment, which will never happen because more than 1/4 of states are beneficiaries of the current system.

And there's another problem. 270 electors are required for a candidate (and their running mate) to be elected. If you use proportional representation state or national, the minor parties will quite often deny the 270 to either major candidate. And it goes to hell the US House.

There's no solution besides constitutional amendment for that either. The requirement of an actual majority of electors can't just be changed to first-past-the-post.