Should the American Electoral College System be abolished?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

No. It's cool.

[San Lumen]

No. It's cool.

why?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

No. It's cool.

why?

I like all the states reporting their results individually, them being called, and the excitement of it all. Plus, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years. They need to be given a boost to make things fairer for them.

[San Lumen]

why?

I like all the states reporting their results individually, them being called, and the excitement of it all. Plus, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years. They need to be given a boost to make things fairer for them.

Your first statement is not a reason to keep it.

No party should be given an unfair advantage like that. if they can't win the popular vote too bad. would you think it was fair if a candidate for statewide office won the popular vote but lost the election because they didn't win a a majority of counties or state legislative districts?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

I like all the states reporting their results individually, them being called, and the excitement of it all. Plus, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years. They need to be given a boost to make things fairer for them.

Your first statement is not a reason to keep it.

No party should be given an unfair advantage like that. if they can't win the popular vote too bad. would you think it was fair if a candidate for statewide office won the popular vote but lost the election because they didn't win a a majority of counties or state legislative districts?

But if the US didn't have the Electoral College the Democrats would always win.

[San Lumen]

Your first statement is not a reason to keep it.

No party should be given an unfair advantage like that. if they can't win the popular vote too bad. would you think it was fair if a candidate for statewide office won the popular vote but lost the election because they didn't win a a majority of counties or state legislative districts?

But if the US didn't have the Electoral College the Democrats would always win.

And that would be bad why? If a party can't win the popular vote too bad.

You also didn't answer my question.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

But if the US didn't have the Electoral College the Democrats would always win.

And that would be bad why? If a party can't win the popular vote too bad.

You also didn't answer my question.

Because elections should be competitive.

If otherwise the other party would always win, yes.

[Hispida]

yes

[San Lumen]

And that would be bad why? If a party can't win the popular vote too bad.

You also didn't answer my question.

Because elections should be competitive.

If otherwise the other party would always win, yes.

Giving a party an advantage like that does not make them competitive.

Would a system for statewide requiring a candidate win a majority of counties or state legislative district be fair to you? In New York for example under a system requiring a majority of counties the Democrat would have lost the Governor and Attorney General election in 2018 despite winning 59 and 62 percent of the vote.

[Nimzonia]

Your first statement is not a reason to keep it.

No party should be given an unfair advantage like that. if they can't win the popular vote too bad. would you think it was fair if a candidate for statewide office won the popular vote but lost the election because they didn't win a a majority of counties or state legislative districts?

But if the US didn't have the Electoral College the Democrats would always win.

No, the GOP would just have to move back towards the center and adopt a platform people will actually vote for, instead of just relying on a rigged system and endless fuckery to keep undemocratically facilitating right wing fringe interests.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Because elections should be competitive.

If otherwise the other party would always win, yes.

Giving a party an advantage like that does not make them competitive.

Would a system for statewide requiring a candidate win a majority of counties or state legislative district be fair to you? In New York for example under a system requiring a majority of counties the Democrat would have lost the Governor and Attorney General election in 2018 despite winning 59 and 62 percent of the vote.

The US doesn't require a presidential candidate to win a majority of states or congressional districts, so no.

[San Lumen]

Giving a party an advantage like that does not make them competitive.

Would a system for statewide requiring a candidate win a majority of counties or state legislative district be fair to you? In New York for example under a system requiring a majority of counties the Democrat would have lost the Governor and Attorney General election in 2018 despite winning 59 and 62 percent of the vote.

The US doesn't require a presidential candidate to win a majority of states or congressional districts, so no.

It does make land area matter more than votes.

Why is such a system unfair for statewide offices but not for President?

[Vistulange]

And that would be bad why? If a party can't win the popular vote too bad.

You also didn't answer my question.

Because elections should be competitive.

If otherwise the other party would always win, yes.

It's almost as if the United States has a shitty voting system.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

why?

I like all the states reporting their results individually, them being called, and the excitement of it all. Plus, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years. They need to be given a boost to make things fairer for them.

1. you could still have that and the electoral college. even if you could, that’s not a valid reason to undermine democracy.
2. lol wtf you need to give one party a bonus to “make it fairer”? what do you think “fair” means?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

And that would be bad why? If a party can't win the popular vote too bad.

You also didn't answer my question.

Because elections should be competitive.

If otherwise the other party would always win, yes.

elections would still be competitive. Republicans would just have to be less batshit crazy.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Your first statement is not a reason to keep it.

No party should be given an unfair advantage like that. if they can't win the popular vote too bad. would you think it was fair if a candidate for statewide office won the popular vote but lost the election because they didn't win a a majority of counties or state legislative districts?

But if the US didn't have the Electoral College the Democrats would always win.

yes, because the majority of people support democrats. that’s what democracy is.

[Saksoni]

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

It is a real dictatornship of the minority you are making there.Grow up and accept that you dont have to be different in everything than Europe and almost always in a bad way.

[Saksoni]

But if the US didn't have the Electoral College the Democrats would always win.

yes, because the majority of people support democrats. that’s what democracy is.

And we wouldnt have Republicans trying to abolish Democracy, or debates over whatever they should make 2 separate countries- Everything would be better.But no, Americans have to protect their liberty of having dumb systems, like no public transport, whatever their voting system is called, no free healthcare or higher education, calling socialdemocrats communists and gun control that should even be called that but renamed into gun giveaway.

[Big Bad Blue]

Theoretically the EC was established to prevent narcissistic authoritarians with foreign ties from occupying the Oval Office. Having utterly failed in this task by elevating the criminal, defeated former president to the highest elective office in the land, its only function is the one it has had all of its existence: to give the most reactionary forces in US society an outsized role in picking the President.

Either through Constitutional amendment or through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (whereby states with a majority of EC votes pledge their Electors to the winner of the national popular vote), the EC needs to go.

If its only fault had been to overturn the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box by making W the second-worst US president in history it would still need to go.

[Betoni]

Finland used to have one of those for the presidential elections. The number of electors, who weren't bound by law to vote for any one candidate, was determined by the number of voters in each voting district. Nobody really liked the system but it took until 1991 to get rid of it. The last election to use the system, albeit in a more limited fashion with the first round consisting of direct popular vote and the latter ones of electoral college vote, was 88* I believe. One of the more bizarre aspects of our old system was that the electors could vote for whoever they decided was the best choice even if that person wasn't a declared candidate. I don't think it ever happened, but it would have been funny.

edit*
fixed the year

[Big Bad Blue]

Finland used to have one of those for the presidential elections. The number of electors, who weren't bound by law to vote for any one candidate, was determined by the number of voters in each voting district. Nobody really liked the system but it took until 1991 to get rid of it. The last election to use the system, albeit in a more limited fashion with the first round consisting of direct popular vote and the latter ones of electoral college vote, was 82 I believe. One of the more bizarre aspects of our old system was that the electors could vote for whoever they decided was the best choice even if that person wasn't a declared candidate. I don't think it ever happened, but it would have been funny.

Theoretically US Electors are supposed to be free to vote for any candidate and, as pointed out above, had a duty to vote against an unqualified candidate. 2016 (if not 2000) definitively disproved that theory.

[Sarzonia]

There may have been valid reasons to implement it in the early days of the Republic because there was concern that the large states would overwhelm the smaller states in discourse.

That said, the idea of a small group of electors representing a state choosing the people who actually get to decide who the President and Vice President will be is ridiculous. If you lose the popular vote, you shouldn't be getting inaugurated on the January 20th after an election. The institution is ridiculously undemocratic.

[Betoni]

Finland used to have one of those for the presidential elections. The number of electors, who weren't bound by law to vote for any one candidate, was determined by the number of voters in each voting district. Nobody really liked the system but it took until 1991 to get rid of it. The last election to use the system, albeit in a more limited fashion with the first round consisting of direct popular vote and the latter ones of electoral college vote, was 82 I believe. One of the more bizarre aspects of our old system was that the electors could vote for whoever they decided was the best choice even if that person wasn't a declared candidate. I don't think it ever happened, but it would have been funny.

Theoretically US Electors are supposed to be free to vote for any candidate and, as pointed out above, had a duty to vote against an unqualified candidate. 2016 (if not 2000) definitively disproved that theory.

Yeah, but don't you guys have some laws to make your electors "faithful" to the popular vote? Plus, the multiparty system can make the whole thing even more susceptible to backroom politicking during the collage vote, or as they were forbidden from discussion of the vote during the actual voting process they took brakes sometimes to make deals and to get enough votes for any one candidate. Discussions weren't forbidden during breaks you see.

[Big Bad Blue]

Theoretically US Electors are supposed to be free to vote for any candidate and, as pointed out above, had a duty to vote against an unqualified candidate. 2016 (if not 2000) definitively disproved that theory.

Yeah, but don't you guys have some laws to make your electors "faithful" to the popular vote? Plus, the multiparty system can make the whole thing even more susceptible to backroom politicking during the collage vote, or as they were forbidden from discussion of the vote during the actual voting process they took brakes sometimes to make deals and to get enough votes for any one candidate. Discussions weren't forbidden during breaks you see.

Most US States have such laws and, in 2020, the Supremes ruled they were constitutional, but they are unevenly enforced. Seven of the 10 Electors who cast votes for candidates other than Hillary Rodham Clinton (the most highly-qualified Presidential candidate in my lifetime) or the criminal, defeated former president basically got away with it.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

There may have been valid reasons to implement it in the early days of the Republic because there was concern that the large states would overwhelm the smaller states in discourse.

That said, the idea of a small group of electors representing a state choosing the people who actually get to decide who the President and Vice President will be is ridiculous. If you lose the popular vote, you shouldn't be getting inaugurated on the January 20th after an election. The institution is ridiculously undemocratic.

I agree.