Current Events > Are you for or against the Electoral College?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tmaster148 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Caution998 posted...

Yes and California and New York state shouldn't decide the fate for the rest of the 48 other states.

Appears Math isn't your strong suit.

You probably should have thought before posting.

Annihilated wants to get annihilated because he also doesn't understand basic math.

NY Population: 19.54 million (2018)
CA Population: 39.56 million (2018)
NY + CA Population = 59.1 million
US Population: 327.2 million (2018)

NY & CA is only around 18% of the total US population, so it's literally mathematically impossible for only the people in those two states to ever control the election in a popular vote.

BUT THEYRE LIBERALS SO THEYRE EVILLLLLLLLLL!
---

Caution998 posted...

You literally have no proof that is the case.

Voting tallies. Democratic presidential candidates have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.
---

Electoral college is basically a way to make a tug o war that shouldn't exist in a two party system. There's no way this should even happen. They're designing it to be this way. The states' votes change each time. They're basically using old ass borders to justify this system because they've always been around and people will just be like, "Ok, cool I've seen these borders before. Makes sense!"

And then they're like, "Here, Wyoming. You can have a hand in screwing the informed and generally collectively minded and compassionate populous over in the cities. We'll give you an extra vote or two that you don't deserve so that we can keep making money while all these people fight over shit."

Like get the fuck out of the way. It's almost 2020 and we're still talking about electoral college and if some guy can bone another guy. We still got people in churches praying to a man in the sky. This is how fucked up things are because republicans are slowing everything down. Is it not OBVIOUS that this is what's going on?

Tmaster148 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Caution998 posted...

Yes and California and New York state shouldn't decide the fate for the rest of the 48 other states.

Appears Math isn't your strong suit.

You probably should have thought before posting.

Annihilated wants to get annihilated because he also doesn't understand basic math.

NY Population: 19.54 million (2018)
CA Population: 39.56 million (2018)
NY + CA Population = 59.1 million
US Population: 327.2 million (2018)

NY & CA is only around 18% of the total US population, so it's literally mathematically impossible for only the people in those two states to ever control the election in a popular vote.

Don't hurt yourself with all that backpedaling. Let me break it down for you.

50 - 48 = 2. Two states. California and New York. Boom, done. That's what you should have checked before making a fool of yourself.

sktgamer_13dude posted...

BUT THEYRE LIBERALS SO THEYRE EVILLLLLLLLLL!

Well yeah obviously they are, but that's not what is being discussed.

Rebel_Patriot posted...

gguirao posted...

Against. Why not just count each person's vote and let the candidate with the most vote win?

That would have been horrifying for minorities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries

It was only through the anti-democratic aspects of our system, the Senate and the filibuster, that southern pols were able to block a lot of federal legislation that would have benefited African Americans. Anti-lynching laws, for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill?wprov=sfla1
---

Annihilated posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Caution998 posted...

Yes and California and New York state shouldn't decide the fate for the rest of the 48 other states.

Appears Math isn't your strong suit.

You probably should have thought before posting.

Annihilated wants to get annihilated because he also doesn't understand basic math.

NY Population: 19.54 million (2018)
CA Population: 39.56 million (2018)
NY + CA Population = 59.1 million
US Population: 327.2 million (2018)

NY & CA is only around 18% of the total US population, so it's literally mathematically impossible for only the people in those two states to ever control the election in a popular vote.

Don't hurt yourself with all that backpedaling. Let me break it down for you.

50 - 48 = 2. Two states. California and New York. Boom, done. That's what you should have checked before making a fool of yourself.

sktgamer_13dude posted...

BUT THEYRE LIBERALS SO THEYRE EVILLLLLLLLLL!

Well yeah obviously they are, but that's not what is being discussed.

You dont have an argument, yet you clearly want to argue
---

Looks like Annihilated still wants to be Annihilated.

You might need some glasses since you apparently fail to see how two states having a total of 18% of the population is less than the other 48 state population total.
---

Annihilated posted...

Don't hurt yourself with all that backpedaling. Let me break it down for you.

50 - 48 = 2. Two states. California and New York. Boom, done. That's what you should have checked before making a fool of yourself.

what the fuck is this post lmao

Against. It's another vestige of slavery. Initially for the benefit of slave holding states, now for the benefit of flyover states.
---

I think America needs a King/Queen. Voting is a f'n work, not real.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

2 cities having almost 20% of the entire country's population absolutely favors the argument that they will have a massive influence on the outcome of the election. Yes, 20% doesn't decide it technically, but no reason to get hung up on a hyperbolic statement.

TIL California is a city
---

fenderbender321 posted...

2 cities having almost 20% of the entire country's population

???????????

You know what he meant.
---

Acting like any city or state is a monolithic voting block is also ridiculously (and deliberately) disingenuous and anyone who relies on that argument isnt worth talking to.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

. It's not that hard to see.

It's also not hard to see that people, not states, vote.

"Winner-Take-All!" is the ABSOLUTE WORST system for any form of Constitutional Representative Democracy!

"Proportional Representation" along with decimal level "Proportional Voting Power" PER SEAT is what is necessary for a accurate Democracy along with the ability for the citizens to allocate their voting power amongst all candidates of their choosing in any combination they want.

Yes it is a little bit more complicated, but it is accurate, prevents gerrymandering, and every party gets their little voice heard along with their slice of voting power.

Every seat needs to have all representatives with each party and their allocated voting power go in with the power they earned from their constitutents.

Yes that's a bit more complicated, but it's "Accurate". No more BS of ___ isn't who I voted for.

NOPE! We need it so that all political representatives goes in.

Accuracy is more important.

Corporations/Organizations/Entities don't count as people IMO and shouldn't be allowed to lobby, much less spend money on Elections.

Only the consitutents from that area should be allowed to donate campaign money to the people they want to back. No More, No Less.

If citizen A of area A wants to donate $##,### to Poltician B of Party C, that's their choice.

Everything needs to be capped and regulated since there is only a finite amount of $/citizenry that can be donated and that means every Politician has a mathematically MAXIMUM amount of campaigning funds that can be calculated which realistically would be unlikely to meet since not everybody will donate to them.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

2 cities having almost 20% of the entire country's population absolutely favors the argument that they will have a massive influence on the outcome of the election. Yes, 20% doesn't decide it technically, but no reason to get hung up on a hyperbolic statement.

LA and NYC combined have less than 4% of the nation's population. LA has about 4 million. NYC has about 8.6. Combined that is 12.6. 12.6/327.2 is 0.0385. In percent that would be 3.85%
---

LA City has ~ 4 million

LA County has ~ 10.16 million

Are you talking about "County" or "City"?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

I meant 2 states. i typed the wrong word. It's not that hard to see.

It's still stupid.

"20% of the people in this country live in these two states, therefore their votes shouldn't count as much."

Get real.

One person, one vote. "States' rights" is already represented through the Senate.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

But it's also not hard to see that when a person says "states" in this regard that they mean the people who live in those states.

So, people. People vote.

The electoral college will never go away because the United states isn't a democracy unfortunately
---

fenderbender321 posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Acting like any city or state is a monolithic voting block is also ridiculously (and deliberately) disingenuous and anyone who relies on that argument isnt worth talking to.

It's definitely a fallacious line of thinking but I don't see anyone ITT doing that unless we are just assuming.

Your gimmick sucks
---

Youre against it if you know nothing about history and government.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Honestly it's more of an argument for why federal powers should be very very limited when it comes to domestic issues. Let the states decide how to handle their own people.

Hahahahahaahahahahaha
---

Gunvalkyrie2 posted...

Youre against it if you know nothing about history and government.

lol
---

People just need to ignore fender. Hes a worse version of UR.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Honestly it's more of an argument for why federal powers should be very very limited when it comes to domestic issues. Let the states decide how to handle their own people.

"Letting the states decide how to handle their own people" doesn't exactly have a great track record in the United States.
---

Honestly, people who are for the electoral college should not be allowed to vote.
---

I wonder why Ive never seen anyone defending the EC say we cant let Texas decide the election, even though it has a higher population than New York

BENGHAZl posted...

I wonder why Ive never seen anyone defending the EC say we cant let Texas decide the election, even though it has a higher population than New York

*cough* it's Republican *cough*
---

fenderbender321 posted...

CableZL posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Honestly it's more of an argument for why federal powers should be very very limited when it comes to domestic issues. Let the states decide how to handle their own people.

"Letting the states decide how to handle their own people" doesn't exactly have a great track record in the United States.

Letting a state handle it's own people is not really any different than a small country handling it's own people.

It is, though, since we had a civil war because the south didn't want to give up slavery. Then the whole jim crow era, then the whole civil rights thing... Was essentially all because the country decided to "let the states decide how to handle their own people."

You shouldn't have to move to a different state in order to avoid being treated like a second class citizen of a country.
---

@CableZL posted...

It is, though, since we had a civil war because the south didn't want to give up slavery. Then the whole jim crow era, then the whole civil rights thing... Was essentially all because the country decided to "let the states decide how to handle their own people."

You shouldn't have to move to a different state in order to avoid being treated like a second class citizen of a country.

You do realize that states' rights has long been a stand-in for racism right?
---

bover_87 posted...

@CableZL posted...

It is, though, since we had a civil war because the south didn't want to give up slavery. Then the whole jim crow era, then the whole civil rights thing... Was essentially all because the country decided to "let the states decide how to handle their own people."

You shouldn't have to move to a different state in order to avoid being treated like a second class citizen of a country.

You do realize that states' rights has long been a stand-in for racism right?

Yes, which is a big reason why I disagree with the idea of "letting the states decide how to handle their own people." The country has tried that and it turned out terribly.
---

Behaviorism posted...

The electoral college will never go away because the United states isn't a democracy unfortunately

it's more a problem with being a federation rather than unitary government, than democracy/republic electoral systems

presently the EC is essentially a republican weapon, yet this still happens:

http://gov.nv.gov/News/Press/2019/Governor_Sisolak_Statement_on_Assembly_Bill_186/
---

There are districts in NY that have more people than whole states lol of course the electoral college is a horrible representation of the American voter.
---

spikethedevil posted...

EwokCommanda posted...

spikethedevil posted...

EwokCommanda posted...

I'm for it. But as each state keeps getting larger populations, it will matter less and less.

So you think it's fair that states with barely any votes might as well not vote? @EwokCommanda

@spikethedevil I think it is a good system because it finds a balance between rural areas and populous ones. However, as even the rural states get larger and larger population areas, those rural areas will be drowned out more.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you think it's fair that it's not even worth voting in certain states as your vote means nothing? @EwokCommanda

---

Definitely for. Go just by popular vote, sounds logical in theory. But then only the most densely populated areas decide the election with their political beliefs. Why bother to campaign anywhere other than New York and California?
---

Phantom36 posted...

Definitely for. Go just by popular vote, sounds logical in theory. But then only the most densely populated areas decide the election with their political beliefs. Why bother to campaign anywhere other than New York and California?

Because campaigning where only 18% of the total population lives is a losing strategy.
---

Yes. A president needs to balance out the needs of the entire nation, not just the interests of the most densely populated regions.

CarrieChan posted...

Yes. A president needs to balance out the needs of the entire nation, not just the interests of the most densely populated regions.

why do rural areas deserve special privileges
---

Gives an incentive for a prospective president to actually give a shit about rural regions instead of saying "Fuck em, all I need is California."