NationStates

Existential Cats wrote:The fact that many states have laws against faithless electors destroys the point.

Either way, as 2016 (and 1872 in the wake of Greeley's death) has shown, faithless electors probably couldn't rally around an alternative candidate anyways. So their best hope, if they dislike both parties' choices, is to prevent anyone from reaching a majority, but this just kicks the can down to the House.

That's what the founders intended. The whole idea of banning faithless electors turns the electoral college into a rubber stamp something it was never meant to be.

Big Jim P wrote:No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

No states should get to decide who is president. The majority of the people who live in the country should.

San Lumen wrote:

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
they don’t. states don’t. they shouldn’t. people should decide, not states. the electoral college is one of the stupidest electoral systems ever.

Not having it would have given us Jackson four years earlier, Tilden would have won in 1876, Cleveland would have won in 1888, Gore in 2000 and no Trump.

cool. I don’t care if it means democracy is upheld. the electoral college is a fundamentally wrong system.

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Not having it would have given us Jackson four years earlier, Tilden would have won in 1876, Cleveland would have won in 1888, Gore in 2000 and no Trump.

cool. I don’t care if it means democracy is upheld. the electoral college is a fundamentally wrong system.

I agree with you completely. I was merely pointing out the elections where having popular vote only would have made a difference.

Incredible how many people in this thread have said something to the effect of 'no, without the electoral college, a majority of people might decide the election!'

To me, an outsider, the electoral college looks like it renders any vote not in a swing state meaningless. Probably not a great system.

Aggicificicerous wrote:Incredible how many people in this thread have said something to the effect of 'no, without the electoral college, a majority of people might decide the election!'

To me, an outsider, the electoral college looks like it renders any vote not in a swing state meaningless. Probably not a great system.

this is quite possibly the most based post I’ve yet to see on this godforsaken forum. people who commend the electoral college because it makes small states matter fundamentally misunderstand how democracy works. the states shouldn’t matter.

Aggicificicerous wrote:Incredible how many people in this thread have said something to the effect of 'no, without the electoral college, a majority of people might decide the election!'

To me, an outsider, the electoral college looks like it renders any vote not in a swing state meaningless. Probably not a great system.

exactly few would think it was fair if such a system existed at the state level. If a candidate for statewide office had to win a majority of counties or state legislative district most would call that unfair or undemocratic.

Mississippi had such a system until 2020 when it was replaced with a runoff system via referendum.

San Lumen wrote:

Aggicificicerous wrote:Incredible how many people in this thread have said something to the effect of 'no, without the electoral college, a majority of people might decide the election!'

To me, an outsider, the electoral college looks like it renders any vote not in a swing state meaningless. Probably not a great system.

exactly few would think it was fair if such a system existed at the state level. If a candidate for statewide office had to win a majority of counties or state legislative district most would call that unfair or undemocratic.

Mississippi had such a system until 2020 when it was replaced with a runoff system via referendum.

the Texas GOP wants to install the electoral college within their state. Republicans love it because it gives them an unfair advantage.

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
exactly few would think it was fair if such a system existed at the state level. If a candidate for statewide office had to win a majority of counties or state legislative district most would call that unfair or undemocratic.

Mississippi had such a system until 2020 when it was replaced with a runoff system via referendum.

the Texas GOP wants to install the electoral college within their state. Republicans love it because it gives them an unfair advantage.

It would probably be struck down in court. The Mississippi one saw a lawsuit filed against it and after judge said it was likely unconstitutional but didn’t strike it down both parties came together in the legislature to create an alternative to put to the people via a constitutional amendment.

1. Abolishing the Electoral College would turn small states into flyover country.

2. It takes three-quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment.

Therefore it will never happen.

Now does someone have a serious issue to discuss?

Righteousistan wrote:1. Abolishing the Electoral College would turn small states into flyover country.

2. It takes three-quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment.

Therefore it will never happen.

Now does someone have a serious issue to discuss?

1. They already are.

2. The question was “should…”, not “will…”

Righteousistan wrote:1. Abolishing the Electoral College would turn small states into flyover country.

2. It takes three-quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment.

Therefore it will never happen.

Now does someone have a serious issue to discuss?

No they would all matter equally. A candidate would have a reason to visit Oklahoma or Idaho.

Big Jim P wrote:No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

Those states do not have sufficient population to outweigh the votes of the rest of the country.

Ifreann wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

Those states do not have sufficient population to outweigh the votes of the rest of the country.

People really need to look at facts before they say things like that. Texas and Florida have more people than New York.

It takes the top 8 states by population to get you over 50% of the population of the US (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia). Rather unlikely that those states will band together and control the presidency given the current political climate in the US, after all the state with the absolute most voters for Trump in 2020 was California.

Imagine a situation where faithless electors actually change an election.

If it was from Red to Blue, you'd have an armed inssurection in the government. Blue to Red, probably secession votes. Either way it would be a complete shitshow.

Thomasi wrote:Imagine a situation where faithless electors actually change an election.

If it was from Red to Blue, you'd have an armed inssurection in the government. Blue to Red, probably secession votes. Either way it would be a complete shitshow.

Electors were never supposed to be bound to their candidate and face punishment for not supporting them.

San Lumen wrote:

Thomasi wrote:Imagine a situation where faithless electors actually change an election.

If it was from Red to Blue, you'd have an armed inssurection in the government. Blue to Red, probably secession votes. Either way it would be a complete shitshow.

Electors were never supposed to be bound to their candidate and face punishment for not supporting them.

I know but it wouldn't stop an absolute breakdown into total civil unrest and chaos.

Thomasi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Electors were never supposed to be bound to their candidate and face punishment for not supporting them.

I know but it wouldn't stop an absolute breakdown into total civil unrest and chaos.

I have doubts.

The Archregimancy wrote:Just for a little bit of historical context, the Electoral College is often seen as an institution unique to the United States, but in fact they were common in post-colonial Western Hemisphere nations in the immediate aftermath of independence, seen almost universally as a necessary means of offering a check on direct democracy.

The last Western Hemisphere country other than the United States to abolish its electoral college was Argentina, which last held a presidential election under an electoral college system in 1989.

So other Western Hemisphere countries have moved on, though conceding that post-independence instability in Latin America meant that their constitutional systems have been subject to rather more flux than in the United States.

France also briefly had one in the earliest days of the Fifth Republic and so did Pakistan under Field Marshal Mohammed Ayub Khan, though the latter is not precisely a model to follow. As for the idea itself, it reeks of elitism and is outdated in a more technological age with better communications. Votes in Iowa shouldn't count for more than those in Illinois, for instance.

Drago Soviet Russia wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:Just for a little bit of historical context, the Electoral College is often seen as an institution unique to the United States, but in fact they were common in post-colonial Western Hemisphere nations in the immediate aftermath of independence, seen almost universally as a necessary means of offering a check on direct democracy.

The last Western Hemisphere country other than the United States to abolish its electoral college was Argentina, which last held a presidential election under an electoral college system in 1989.

So other Western Hemisphere countries have moved on, though conceding that post-independence instability in Latin America meant that their constitutional systems have been subject to rather more flux than in the United States.

France also briefly had one in the earliest days of the Fifth Republic and so did Pakistan under Field Marshal Mohammed Ayub Khan, though the latter is not precisely a model to follow. As for the idea itself, it reeks of elitism and is outdated in a more technological age with better communications. Votes in Iowa shouldn't count for more than those in Illinois, for instance.

Oh look, I wasn't arguing that electoral colleges are desirable simply because they have deeply rooted historical precedents.

On the contrary, implicit in my posts in this thread on the history of electoral colleges in the Western Hemisphere is that they're based on outdated 18th- and 19th-century concerns over the dangers of direct democracy rooted in early modern concepts of the distinction between liberty and democracy, and that other Western Hemisphere states have - ironically enough - managed to discard this outdated practice. It's only the United States that remains wedded to a system that was specifically designed to allow a self-appointed elite to review (and potentially override) the popular vote if they deemed it necessary.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Those states do not have sufficient population to outweigh the votes of the rest of the country.

People really need to look at facts before they say things like that. Texas and Florida have more people than New York.

It takes the top 8 states by population to get you over 50% of the population of the US (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia). Rather unlikely that those states will band together and control the presidency given the current political climate in the US, after all the state with the absolute most voters for Trump in 2020 was California.

The supposed dominance of California and New York is something some Americans seem to just deeply believe, regardless of the facts. I suppose it must be that they have a kind of cultural dominance that Americans then assume would naturally lead to electoral dominance.

Existential Cats wrote:The fact that many states have laws against faithless electors destroys the point.

Either way, as 2016 (and 1872 in the wake of Greeley's death) has shown, faithless electors probably couldn't rally around an alternative candidate anyways. So their best hope, if they dislike both parties' choices, is to prevent anyone from reaching a majority, but this just kicks the can down to the House.

Actually, given that SCOTUS just announced they'd be looking into Harper v. Moore.

So all the state's would have to do is declare which candidate they like the best regardless of what the voters or electors say.

New haven america wrote:

Existential Cats wrote:The fact that many states have laws against faithless electors destroys the point.

Either way, as 2016 (and 1872 in the wake of Greeley's death) has shown, faithless electors probably couldn't rally around an alternative candidate anyways. So their best hope, if they dislike both parties' choices, is to prevent anyone from reaching a majority, but this just kicks the can down to the House.

Actually, given that SCOTUS just announced they'd be looking into Harper v. Moore.

So all the state's would have to do is declare which candidate they like the best regardless of what the voters or electors say.

The court continues to slide into becoming illegitimate. The six conservative judges should be removed for being a threat to democracy.

San Lumen wrote:

New haven america wrote:Actually, given that SCOTUS just announced they'd be looking into Harper v. Moore.

So all the state's would have to do is declare which candidate they like the best regardless of what the voters or electors say.

The court continues to slide into becoming illegitimate. The six conservative judges should be removed for being a threat to democracy.

Now now San, remember what you said, we have to respect the court's rulings and just because we don't like them doesn't mean they're illigetimate.

New haven america wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
The court continues to slide into becoming illegitimate. The six conservative judges should be removed for being a threat to democracy.

Now now San, remember what you said, we have to respect the court's rulings and just because we don't like them doesn't mean they're illigetimate.

I have changed my mind. This court is illegitimate and a danger to the republic.