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

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Electoral College: When empty land holds more weight in an election than actual voters.

---

Antifar posted...

They don't now!

This is an argument for abolishing the Senate; 50 percent of the people should not hold 18 percent of the power.

The electoral college enables candidates to win with an even smaller share of the population.

You mean the thing the EC gave us three years ago?

1. They definitely do. California alone has 39mil to N.Dakota's 760k. But I suppose you could argue that campaigning in California is counter-productive since the state will remain solidly blue and continue voting D unless there is a sudden surge in Red voters entering the state.

2. This would be an incorrect if I was arguing against the Senate, since each state can vote in 2 representatives every six years, however there is another problem created by letting major cities run most of the county, since the biggest city's votes will always outweigh the fringe cities and towns. So each state is somewhat represented during the process of creating new laws.

3. The electoral college gives states electoral votes based on how many house members they have, plus two for your Senators. They trust states to elect representatives that would look out for their interest best, so that each state is fairly represented in the election process. However, this system still has its own issues, such as the denser states controlling the most votes (which would also be a problem in a popular vote system). Having a popular vote system would effectively creates the same problem, but only on a much larger scale.

4. One Republican winning doesn't for tell ages of Red ruling. Democratic candidates are still in control of different positions of the government, and they have still remained as popular as ever with their core base. Just like Republicans during the Obama administration.

---

The thing is popular vote is that it's not states voting. So it doesn't really matter if California has 39 mil people (let alone assuming all 39 million people will vote for the same candidate) since it's still not California casting the vote.

---

OctilIery posted...

No, but a liberal state like NYC or California has significantly more pull because of the density of the urban liberal population.

Everyone has equal pull. States are no longer voting. 200 people that agree in your apartment building vs 200 people that agree across 6 states are still just a 200-200 tie.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I have no idea what this means or what it matters. I care more about a popular vote than about moral Republicans.

I mean that they will pander to the largest urban areas in a dishonest fashion. Or at worst an honest fashion where they will only focus on bettering the largest population areas.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Do most people truly care about what happens far away from them? Why should I feel any more for someone in some Midwest states than anyone in any other state? This seems like less a defense for the Electoral College and more a demand for some other kind of electoral system. And let's not forget that Congress and state/local government also exist to represent more focused interests

So fuck em?
Also farmers and such are important to the country despite most people not giving a shit about them.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Also farmers and such are important to the country despite most people not giving a shit about them.

Stop pretending that a popular vote would mean they get no say. People living in rural areas is still almost half the country

---

OctilIery posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Best video I've seen on it

Same issues that occur with popular WTA occur with EC WTA, which is what our current system is.

Which is why they even go over an EC like system in that vid. I'd say popular WTA is better than EC WTA, but the primary issue is the tiered WTA system, which is why ranked voting has been mentioned (which again, could be EC or popular vote, as these are two seperate issues).

---

I also notice that caution got suspended for that post
---

s0nicfan posted...

*Laughs in Boris Johnson*

---

PleaseClap posted...

I also notice that caution got suspended for that post

lol
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Stop pretending that a popular vote would mean they get no say. People living in rural areas is still almost half the country

Theyd get a say, but they outright cant compete with urban interest issues because they're less than half. So theyd either be completely ignored because interests are too splintered (idk) or pandered to over urban populations if they vote in the same manner.

---

Izrael posted...

3. The electoral college gives states electoral votes based on how many house members they have, plus two for your Senators. They trust states to elect representatives that would look out for their interest best, so that each state is fairly represented in the election process. However, this system still has its own issues, such as the denser states controlling the most votes (which would also be a problem in a popular vote system).

This system has the exact opposite problem, actually. Less densely populated states are overrepresented because of the way electoral votes are apportioned.
---

PleaseClap posted...

I also notice that caution got suspended for that post

I'm no defender of his but I don't know that there was anything "technically" against the ToS in what he posted. It was all stupid garbage, great replacement horseshit, but not worth a suspension. Public ostracizing and having it quoted and thrown in his face every time he wants to be taken seriously, yes. A suspension? Nah. If we were to start suspending people over ever single dogwhistle we'd have no one left to argue with.

---

EverDownward posted...

If someone can explain to me how abolishing the electoral college won't just end up with only New York, Florida, Texas, and California mattering in a presidential election

Even if you could get every 2016 voter in each of those states to vote for the same candidate (and you couldn't), that candidate would end up with about 30 percent of the vote.
---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Theyd get a say, but they outright cant compete with urban interest issues because they're less than half. So theyd either be completely ignored because interests are too splintered (idk) or pandered to over urban populations if they vote in the same manner.

There wouldn't be any special interests. You're acting as if there is cohesive urban interest in all cities nationwide while all rural areas are diverse and hold different values. Every person everywhere, no matter their values would have exactly one vote just like everyone else. Everyone would vote and then we would just see what happens. Given the diversity of America, I imagine you would need runoffs to reach a satisfactory majority.

I still think you're having trouble thinking in a context outside of the current American system.

---

EverDownward posted...

If someone can explain to me how abolishing the electoral college won't just end up with only New York, Florida, Texas, and California mattering in a presidential election, I would be possibly willing to give it a shot.

You're lying, because people have already explained it to you, and you continue to be disingenuous

---

Antifar posted...

This system has the exact opposite problem, actually. Less densely populated states are overrepresented because of the way electoral votes are apportioned.

Actually, if you look at the states with the most electoral votes, you'll see that there is only one state that isn't heavily populated, that broke into the top 6 (Pennsylvania). States with smaller populations, such as N.Dakota, only get three votes. If anything, they're way under represented compared to California, which has 55 votes.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Theyd get a say, but they outright cant compete with urban interest issues because they're less than half. So theyd either be completely ignored because interests are too splintered (idk) or pandered to over urban populations if they vote in the same manner.

Why are you ignoring that state/local government's and politicians still exist?

---

Izrael posted...

States with smaller populations, such as N.Dakota, only get three votes. If anything, they're way under represented compared to California, which has 55 votes.

California has 50 times as many people as North Dakota. In order to give them equal power per capita to ND, they would need 150 electoral votes.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

There wouldn't be any special interests. You're acting as if there is cohesive urban interest in all cities nationwide while all rural areas are diverse and hold different values. Every person everywhere, no matter their values would have exactly one vote just like everyone else. Everyone would vote and then we would just see what happens. Given the diversity of America, I imagine you would need runoffs to reach a satisfactory majority.

I still think you're having trouble thinking in a context outside of the current American system.

I think it's an easier system to manipulate than the EC. I feel like I'm dramatically more cynical when it comes to my view of politicians and it makes me worried that trying it out would be wildly irresponsible.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Why are you ignoring that state/local government's and politicians still exist?

Because they dont do the same thing as the President.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I think it's an easier system to manipulate than the EC

In what way?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Everyone has equal pull. States are no longer voting. 200 people that agree in your apartment building vs 200 people that agree across 6 states are still just a 200-200 tie.

Not quite.

Say you live in Kansas. You have issues with federal funding and want to vote for a candidate that supports that. Maybe even a couple local states have the same problem.

People in California and New York don't face the same issues. They are the overwhelming population majority, so the problem still exists that what people vote for there tends to get priority.

A good system isn't one that just looks for flat majority, but one that demands a certain threshold. As the candidate you support loses, your vote should be shifted to the next best option rather than just ignored like happens in a straight majority.

Also fun fact: Trump would've still won without the EC. He would've shifted his campaign tactics to target the important voter areas to get majority votes. The results would've been different but the outcome the same.

OctilIery posted...

Also fun fact: Trump would've still won without the EC. He would've shifted his campaign tactics to target the important voter areas to get majority votes. The results would've been different but the outcome the same.

I would like to live in the world where he had to appeal to more people in order to win.
---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I think it's an easier system to manipulate than the EC

No you don't. You should stop lying.

---

How big of a baby do you have to be to whine about changing rules that have been around forever just because your preferred candidate didn't win LOL

Maybe instead of stomping around and pouting you could pick a better Democratic candidate next time? Just a thought

NeverOffended posted...

How big of a baby do you have to be to whine about changing rules that have been around forever just because your preferred candidate didn't win LOL

The rules have sucked forever! There have been pushes to change them almost since they were written down, and several other aspects of our elections have been changed.
---

Izrael posted...

Actually, if you look at the states with the most electoral votes, you'll see that there is only one state that isn't heavily populated, that broke into the top 6 (Pennsylvania). States with smaller populations, such as N.Dakota, only get three votes. If anything, they're way under represented compared to California, which has 55 votes.

Pennsylvania is the 6th most populous state in the nation according to the 2010 census.

You do know how EC votes are allocated. right? They didn't just make shit up

---

OctilIery posted...

Also fun fact: Trump would've still won without the EC. He would've shifted his campaign tactics to target the important voter areas to get majority votes. The results would've been different but the outcome the same.

This isn't just about Trump though.

If Trunp still wins popular vote, so be it. But at least if he'll get elected, it's because the country actually wanted him

---

Antifar posted...

In what way?

I feel like it's easier to target certain large cities nationwide than to fight those battleground states. Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular are very split on rural/urban populations and candidates are forced to confront them both instead of ignore one.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

No you don't. You should stop lying.

You dont think I dont. You stop lying.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I feel like it's easier to target certain large cities nationwide than to fight those battleground states. Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular are very split on rural/urban populations and candidates are forced to confront them both instead of ignore one.

Why would candidates have to confront less voters in a system where literally everyone is one massive bloc?

---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Pennsylvania is the 6th most populous state in the nation according to the 2010 census.

You do know how EC votes are allocated. right? They didn't just make shit up

I mean they kind of did when they came up with it in the first place >_> like deciding the minimum was 3.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I dont think telling the rural states to piss off is better. New Yorkers dont give a shit about Omaha and vice versa. California isn't a larger variety of people like you said earlier. They dont give a shit about the midwest. They care about their issues.

Rural states already have a massively disproportionate amount of power in the Senate. They are also massively subsidized by larger and more populous states. So no, I don't think they are getting the shaft.

And that's supposed to be a problem? Heavily populated states naturally get more of a say than rural states in the House of Reps, which is precisely the reason why each state must also have an equal voice in the Senate: to balance the will of the populace (House of Representatives) to the will of each state as a unique yet equal entity (U.S. Senate).

Or do you not understand the concept of a federation?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Why would candidates have to confront less voters in a system where literally everyone is one massive bloc?

Because they can game the numbers. Like go for super majority in certain places and completely ignore large portions of the country that have few people but are still important to the country. Like I said, I think it's easier than manipulating the EC.

So not necessarily fewer but less diverse.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Because they can game the numbers. Like go for super majority in certain places and completely ignore large portions of the country that have few people but are still important to the country.

Trust me: Donald Trump completely ignored California and Texas. Likewise, he ignored Vermont and North Dakota. The system, in fact, encourages that decision.
---

Antifar posted...

Trust me: Donald Trump completely ignored California and Texas. Likewise, he ignored Vermont and North Dakota. The system, in fact, encourages that decision.

Yes, that's still a problem with the EC but I feel it's the lesser evil.

---

ZMythos posted...

It really is the most democratic way of voting.

Just remember that California and Texas essentially will make all elective decisions for our country.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Because they can game the numbers. Like go for super majority in certain places and completely ignore large portions of the country that have few people but are still important to the country. Like I said, I think it's easier than manipulating the EC.

So not necessarily fewer but less diverse.

That's exactly what they're doing now, except they're ignoring an even larger portion of the population....

---

Antifar posted...

California has 50 times as many people as North Dakota. In order to give them equal power per capita to ND, they would need 150 electoral votes.

My first mistake was weighing the votes at face value, which I discovered after brushing my knowledge up in that area. After doing so, I observed that the power of each vote is mostly determined by voter turnout, in relation to the number of voters. And after reviewing this system, I must say, that rural, smaller states are not at all over-represented. If each vote carried the an amount of power proportionate to their voter turnout or population, then how would these small States not get crushed?

The votes of the smaller states carrying more influence than a populous one, is laughably ironic when you consider how much campaigning is actually done in those areas.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Because they can game the numbers. Like go for super majority in certain places and completely ignore large portions of the country that have few people but are still important to the country. Like I said, I think it's easier than manipulating the EC.

So not necessarily fewer but less diverse.

I think it's far harder to game and that you are still thinking in terms of there being places to win as opposed to a flat majority of Americans across the entire country. There is no such thing as a battleground state in a nationwide popular vote.

The Electoral College has convinced people that there are two opinions in America. I think you would see unprecedented turnout and parity if we changed systems. Everything about our elections could be turned on its ear. It's our only hope of moving away from the two-party system.

---

Vermander posted...

Just remember that California and Texas essentially will make all elective decisions for our country.

Not even close
---

Vermander posted...

Just remember that California and Texas essentially will make all elective decisions for our country.

20 million registered voters in California.
16 million in Texas

And about 140 million people voted in 2016.

That's 26% of the voting population. If you only pandered to those states, you'd lose.

(Oh and there's about 240 million people eligible total. So, y'know. Even smaller percentage of voters live in those states.)

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

That's exactly what they're doing now, except they're ignoring an even larger portion of the population....

But they're forced to confront issues theyd otherwise ignore because of the demographics of those states. Lesser evil imo

---

Vermander posted...

Just remember that California and Texas essentially will make all elective decisions for our country.

Are they increasing their population tenfold, but only of people with the same political views? Are we abolishing Congress and lower levels of government?

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

But they're forced to confront issues theyd otherwise ignore because of the demographics of those states. Lesser evil imo

No they're not lol.

also calling democracy evil while supporting the EC is a fucking joke position to take.

---

ZMythos posted...

20 million registered voters in California.
16 million in Texas

And about 140 million people voted in 2016.

That's 26% of the voting population. If you only pandered to those states, you'd lose.

(Oh and there's about 240 million people eligible total. So, y'know. Even smaller percentage of voters live in those states.)

And that's assuming one candidate would win 100% of the vote with 100% turnout.

---

Izrael posted...

The votes of the smaller states carrying more influence than a populous one, is laughably ironic when you consider how much campaigning is actually done in those areas.

Vermander posted...

Just remember that California and Texas essentially will make all elective decisions for our country.

Those states have 68 million people, or roughly 22% of the population.

Also, the EC is more likely than a popular vote to lend those states unified power. As demographics shift, we might not be too far from a Democrat narrowly winning Texas, thereby taking 100 percent of those states' electoral votes (17% of the total).
---