Current Events > Impeaching Trump is nice and all, but consider abolishing the Electoral College

(+) Yeah! (+)

and prevent fuckwads like him from getting elected ever again.

---

*Laughs in Boris Johnson*

---

s0nicfan posted...

*Laughs in Boris Johnson*

Boris is only 65% fuckwad.

Still problematic. But also not Trump levels of fuckwad.

---

It should be mandatory that a President has to win 6/10 of the most populated states by popular vote to be elected President

That way states like Wyoming can't outweigh states like New York

cmiller4642 posted...

It should be mandatory that a President has to win 6/10 of the most populated states by popular vote to be elected President

That way states like Wyoming can't outweigh states like New York

Or we could avoid a complicated solution like that and just go with popular vote.

---

You don't need to abolish the electoral college, you need to allow it and the house of reps be allowed to grow or shrink depending on population, the way it was actually meant to function.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

You don't need to abolish the electoral college, you need to allow it and the house of reps be allowed to grow or shrink depending on population, the way it was actually meant to function.

ZMythos posted...

Or we could avoid a complicated solution like that and just go with popular vote.

---

I'm ok with abolishing the electoral college, but I still want the house to not be fixed to a set number of seats. It needs to be flexible.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

You don't need to abolish the electoral college, you need to allow it and the house of reps be allowed to grow or shrink depending on population, the way it was actually meant to function.

The last time we expanded Congress, each Representative represented about 215,000 people. These days each Rep in California represents 700,000.

---

I mean, this might actually be good for republicans in blue States, so sure.

Give everyone a fair shake.

ScazarMeltex posted...

I'm ok with abolishing the electoral college, but I still want the house to not be fixed to a set number of seats. It needs to be flexible.

I'd be okay with this. Perhaps make it so that one representative is worth XX number of voters.

But before that happens make sure all Gerrymandering is quashed.

---

Phewfus posted...

I mean, this might actually be good for republicans in blue States, so sure.

Give everyone a fair shake.

It really is the most democratic way of voting.

---

okay TC i will consider it

---

ZMythos posted...

I'd be okay with this. Perhaps make it so that one representative is worth XX number of voters.

But before that happens make sure all Gerrymandering is quashed.

That's exactly the way it was supposed to function. The permanent apportion act of 1929 is what fucked it up and needs to be repealed.

---

ZMythos posted...

It really is the most democratic way of voting.

call me crazy, but I somehow doubt you have the best interests of Republicans at heart here.

---

Why not both?
---

We shouldn't pretend that a popular vote will produce 100 percent good candidates. It won't. But is preferable to the electoral college because it is better at reflecting the will of the voters, and for other reasons to boot.
---

Caution999 posted...

call me crazy, but I somehow doubt you have the best interests of Republicans at heart here.

Republicans don't have the best interest in America.

---

Caution999 posted...

call me crazy, but I somehow doubt you have the best interests of Republicans at heart here.

LOL, yeah actual democracy usually isn't in the best interests of groups of people engaged in voter suppression and gerrymandering. Cry more.

---

We can't know for sure how a popular vote would have affected any of the previous presidential elections because surely the voter turnout would have been greater in all of them.

Electoral College was never about having a democratic election, it's about state sovereignty.
---

Caution999 posted...

call me crazy, but I somehow doubt you have the best interests of Republicans at heart here.

Maybe Republicans wouldn't feel threatened by a popular vote if their opinions weren't so unpopular. Not my problem.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Electoral College was never about having a democratic election, it's about state sovereignty.

And state sovereignty means very little in the modern era.

---

States already have Congress for their representatives and Congress is meant to be a check on the president. So personally I don't see an issue with letting the president be a popular vote when states get the power to check the president anyways.

---

Making it popular vote would just give a rather strong incentive for the 46 other states to literally secede from the union. Effectively, only four states would matter with the largest cities and people in rural areas would be screwed.

California, New York and Texas already have a HUGE number of electoral votes.

---

ZMythos posted...

Or we could avoid a complicated solution like that and just go with popular vote.

Ah yes mob rule always works out great. Of course if Hilldog won no one would be like derp the electoral college should go derp

---

Caution999 posted...

Making it popular vote would just give a rather strong incentive for the 46 other states to literally secede from the union. Effectively, only four states would matter with the largest cities and people in rural areas would be screwed.

California, New York and Texas already have a HUGE number of electoral votes.

I see math ain't your strong suit.

---

Yes, we should use the popular vote instead of electoral college. Many republicans lie and pretend that they think it wouldn't represent the people as well, when they actually only oppose the change because they know it would produce more democrats.

If we went by the popular vote, presidential candidates would be forced to appeal to a wider variety of people instead of just a few living in battleground states.

---

ZMythos posted...

And state sovereignty means very little in the modern era.

That's why it's in the Constitution though.

You will never fully get rid of it without a Constitutional Amendment, and that will never happen because not enough states will ratify it. Even if that agreement between states to vote for the person with the most popular votes goes through, it will fall apart as soon as something like 2004 happens (6 of the Top 10 states by population voted for Kerry, but Bush still won the popular vote).
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That's why it's in the Constitution though.

You will never fully get rid of it without a Constitutional Amendment, and that will never happen because not enough states will ratify it. Even if that agreement between states to vote for the person with the most popular votes goes through, it will fall apart as soon as something like 2004 happens (6 of the Top 10 states by population voted for Kerry, but Bush still won the popular vote).

Actually, states can effectively get rid of the Electoral College without ever passing an amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

You don't need to abolish the electoral college

They need to have abolished it yesterday.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Actually, states can effectively get rid of the Electoral College without ever passing an amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY

Read my post, I talked about that.
---

Caution999 posted...

Making it popular vote would just give a rather strong incentive for the 46 other states to literally secede from the union. Effectively, only four states would matter with the largest cities and people in rural areas would be screwed.

California, New York and Texas already have a HUGE number of electoral votes.

Uh there are millions of people in states that effectively have no voice because there states are solidly one color. Because we care more about land than people. I don't see anyone demanding all elections be decided by electors, just one.

The Electoral College being removed would not abolish Congress or state and local government, so states would still have a voice and you would still be able to vote in people that represent your interests more specifically.It would just make the person who represents everyone be voted on directly by everyone. We should establish ranked-choice voting and some other changes as well.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Anyone pushing the only a few states would matter if theres a popular vote shit is so blatantly disingenuous. No one who says that is being honest.

Caution isn't exactly known for his intellectual honesty.

---

Caution999 posted...

Making it popular vote would just give a rather strong incentive for the 46 other states to literally secede from the union.

omg wtf
---

Caution999 posted...

Making it popular vote would just give a rather strong incentive for the 46 other states to literally secede from the union. Effectively, only four states would matter with the largest cities and people in rural areas would be screwed.

1. a small handful of states already decide our elections in the current system, and the only difference is that these states happen to vote republican more often.
2. Popular vote wouldn't add or remove power from populous states. the top 10 largest cities in the US collectively have less than 8% of the entire US population.

---

Did he officially get impeached yet? I haven't kept up this past week or so

Antifar posted...

We shouldn't pretend that a popular vote will produce 100 percent good candidates. It won't. But is preferable to the electoral college because it is better at reflecting the will of the voters, and for other reasons to boot.

Hmm let's put that to the test. If the popular vote won elections instead of the electoral college we'd have had...

Andrew Jackson over John Quincy Adams in 1824. Jackson went on to be president anyway, so we can be less heavy on the hypothetical here. JQA had a pretty uneventful presidency because he got blocked by Congress. Jackson I think did more harm than good. Despite having some good anti-corruption principles, he was horribly racist (even for his time) and his bank war lead to a recession. Funny bit of trivia is that Jackson actually wanted the college to be abolished, haha. John Quincy Adams wins

Samuel J. Tilden over Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. Hayes was a solid president. Got us through an economic panic and railroad strike. Had morals. I don't know too much about Tilden to be honest but Hayes wasn't bad. Rutherford B. Hayes wins

Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888. Again, Cleveland went onto become president anyway. Harrison is kind of underrated. Nobody really talks about him anymore, but he had some landmark policies like Sherman Antitrust. Not a big fan of Cleveland. He had a forgetful first term and his second term was marred by questionable economics. Might be an unpopular opinion, but Benjamin Harrison wins.

Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000. That's some kind of time skip. I'll stop short of saying that Bush was Bush and Gore would've been better by default. I try not to be too harsh on Dubya, because I mean, you put yourself in the boots of President during 9/11 and think of how tough that must be. Still, you watch Gore's interviews about the early 2000s and I think he had by far the more rational response. This is an easy one. Al Gore wins.

Hillary Cliton over Donald Trump in 2016. Uggh. I don't like Hillary. But I don't know. She's bought out by corporations, she's disingenuous...I think she'd have been a weak president, but I think we're really gonna be feeling the damage Trump has done in 2024. Hillary Clinton wins.

Overall it's 3-2 in favor of abolishing the electoral college in my book, but you're right that a popular vote won't always produce good candidates.

---

The Democrats lose one time, and they gotta change the rules. You guys must be a riot to play board games with or play sports with. Do you not realize how petty and immature that looks? Do you guys seriously not even believe in the concept of the exchange of power? Do you not realize that is what has kept America from being totally corrupt? The flushing of power from both parties? Do you not realize THIS is one of the reasons we're a super power? One party being in power for all time will breed corruption. Doesn't matter which one. You see it in cities that are being dominated by Republicans (for decades). You see it in cities that are being dominated by Democrats. You're making a mistake.

It used to be that when a party lost the election, they would do research into the areas that lost them the election and game plan what their strategy would be next time to try and win those voters back. Now? You lose, and forget that....it's too much work. Change the rules, instead.

Honestly, people like me voted for Obama not that long ago. How hard is it to maybe try and win people back?

But I forget. Silly me. We all know what the real agenda is. It's destroying the country as it was founded. It's restarting fresh and making a whole new United States. Ripping up the Constitution in the process and making a new one. Implementing nationwide socialism where people depend on the gov't for every need. Ignoring the rule of law and letting illegal immigrants into "sanctuary cities". Then, when nobody is paying attention, provide them with driver's licenses. Once they got the drivers licenses....THEN we will push for voter ID. Get the illegals to keep the Democrats in power forever.

The blue collar worker in this country is going to be replaced by the illegal immigrant vote. That's the plan. Replace us. The Democrats can no longer try and win us back so...do their best to bring in illegal immigrants to replace the blue collar worker.

oops. Spilled the master plan.


---

Lmao, Caution melty

Caution999 posted...

Lol. Did you forget Trump was already prepared to call fraud on the election if he lost?


---

Holy fuck did NOT expect a caution melty in this topic.

---

Caution999 posted...

The Democrats lose one time, and they gotta change the rules. You guys must be a riot to play board games with or play sports with. Do you not realize how petty and immature that looks? Do you guys seriously not even believe in the concept of the exchange of power? Do you not realize that is what has kept America from being totally corrupt? The flushing of power from both parties? Do you not realize THIS is one of the reasons we're a super power? One party being in power for all time will breed corruption. Doesn't matter which one. You see it in cities that are being dominated by Republicans (for decades). You see it in cities that are being dominated by Democrats. You're making a mistake.

It used to be that when a party lost the election, they would do research into the areas that lost them the election and game plan what their strategy would be next time to try and win those voters back. Now? You lose, and forget that....it's too much work. Change the rules, instead.

Honestly, people like me voted for Obama not that long ago. How hard is it to maybe try and win people back?

But I forget. Silly me. We all know what the real agenda is. It's destroying the country as it was founded. It's restarting fresh and making a whole new United States. Ripping up the Constitution in the process and making a new one. Implementing nationwide socialism where people depend on the gov't for every need. Ignoring the rule of law and letting illegal immigrants into "sanctuary cities". Then, when nobody is paying attention, provide them with driver's licenses. Once they got the drivers licenses....THEN we will push for voter ID. Get the illegals to keep the Democrats in power forever.

The blue collar worker in this country is going to be replaced by the illegal immigrant vote. That's the plan. Replace us. The Democrats can no longer try and win us back so...do their best to bring in illegal immigrants to replace the blue collar worker.

oops. Spilled the master plan.

Holy fuck what a melty. Citation needed please. Can someone please archive this one so later one when he tries to pretend he didn't say this level of stupid shit we have can repost it?

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Citation needed please

Unfortunately an uncensored picture of that body part goes against GameFAQs ToS. Would you really want to see it anyways?

Is caution under the impression that getting a driver's license makes someone a US citizen
---

PleaseClap posted...

Is caution under the impression that getting a driver's license makes someone a US citizen

Yeah, and that's one of the less stupid things about that paranoid meltdown

Lol. He admitted he only opposes popular vote because it would be worse for republicans.

Isn't he one of the many Trump supporters that were advocating for popular vote back in October 2016? When they thought the election would go the opposite way.

---

Rebel_Patriot posted...

Ah yes mob rule always works out great. Of course if Hilldog won no one would be like derp the electoral college should go derp

People have been calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College since long before Hillary ran for President.
---

Also, is caution still trying to claim that he's not a racist? Because yikes @ the "they will not replace us" part of that post
---