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

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think I'm for it. Since we're the "United States", every state should have a voice. And the founding fathers intended it.
---

idek lol
---

Houston posted...

I think I'm for it. Since we're the "United States", every state should have a voice. And the founding fathers intended it.

Every person should have a voice. An equal voice.
---

Always been against it. But Im not even a novice in political logistics so maybe theres more merit to it than I give it credit.
---

jumi posted...

Houston posted...

I think I'm for it. Since we're the "United States", every state should have a voice. And the founding fathers intended it.

Every person should have a voice. An equal voice.

This. Under direct democracy states have as many voices as there are people because no town/city/state is a hive mind that only allows one thought process.

Under the electoral college, unless you live in a swing state, your individual vote is absolutely worthless.

Its bull shit and clearly favors one party. Every vote should matter but with the current system your vote only counts if you live in like 6-8 specific states.

If anything they should at least get rid of the all-or-nothing distribution of electoral votes. Its bull shit someone can win a state by a thousand votes and still get all of that states electoral votes.
---

Even if we had it so that there were automatic voter registration at 18, national holiday for voting, and other government programs to ensure everyone who could vote would vote, I'd be skeptical of the EC because if a party wins by 1 vote, they get all the electoral votes for that state. Makes the rest of the votes irrelevant.
---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

Its bull shit and clearly favors one party. Every vote should matter but with the current system your vote only counts if you live in like 6-8 specific states.

If anything they should at least get rid of the all-or-nothing distribution of electoral votes. Its bull shit someone can win a state by a thousand votes and still get all of that states electoral votes.

People who say this are plebs who only vote for the president and no one else, which illustrates perfectly why states need protection from them.

Houston posted...

And the founding fathers intended it.

The electoral college doesn't function even remotely how the founding fathers had envisioned it to work.
---

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

Its bull shit and clearly favors one party. Every vote should matter but with the current system your vote only counts if you live in like 6-8 specific states.

If anything they should at least get rid of the all-or-nothing distribution of electoral votes. Its bull shit someone can win a state by a thousand votes and still get all of that states electoral votes.

Agreed. I think proportional splitting of the votes would solve most of the problems with the EC. Its stupid that a candidate could win Florida by a tenth of a percentage point and get all 29 electoral votes rather than them being split 15-14. Thats an enormous swing.
---

Aristoph posted...

Houston posted...

And the founding fathers intended it.

The electoral college doesn't function even remotely how the founding fathers had envisioned it to work.

In a way it does because the founding father originally didn't even want the common people to actually vote. They were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority" and wanted only certain people to vote (the electoral college). In my opinion, the EC system is severely outdated. Hell, even Trump is against it.
---

Only a handful of swing states end up really mattering at all - which is ironically the same problem that opponents of other methods of voting often bring up.

Annihilated posted...

TheBiggerWiggle posted...

Its bull shit and clearly favors one party. Every vote should matter but with the current system your vote only counts if you live in like 6-8 specific states.

If anything they should at least get rid of the all-or-nothing distribution of electoral votes. Its bull shit someone can win a state by a thousand votes and still get all of that states electoral votes.

People who say this are plebs who only vote for the president and no one else, which illustrates perfectly why states need protection from them.

Can you elaborate more on your position or can you only hurl insults like some sort of dumbass?
---

Prestoff posted...

Aristoph posted...

Houston posted...

And the founding fathers intended it.

The electoral college doesn't function even remotely how the founding fathers had envisioned it to work.

In a way it does because the founding father originally didn't even want the common people to actually vote. They were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority" and wanted only certain people to vote (the electoral college). In my opinion, the EC system is severely outdated. Hell, even Trump is against it.

Actually, it was intended more as a means of "nominating" candidates that congress would then select from to decide the next President. They didn't expect the electoral college itself to determine the Presidency hardly ever (delegate George Mason is quoted as having said that the electoral college deciding the President was "not likely to happen twice in the same century"). They expected there to be multiple people vying for the Presidency, and gaining a clear majority of the EC votes was intended to be rare.

The EC was essentially a middle-ground. They didn't trust the general population to decide the President because frankly most of the population was extremely uneducated, and the fact that there was no real rapid communication across the country meant most of them wouldn't even know all the candidates who were running let alone their actual stances on issues. They also didn't want congress deciding it on their own because they were afraid it would be too easy for corruption and foreign meddling to run rampant.

The compromise was to have the electoral college "nominate" the top candidates from the general election, and then have congress decide among those top picks.

Well with advances in technology, the lack of education and inability to spread news across the country is no longer an issue. And we've already seen how it didn't prevent foreign meddling anymore due to those same technological advances. To be frank, the EC is out-dated, no longer useful, and at times downright harmful to our elections.
---

Aristoph posted...

Actually, it was intended more as a means of "nominating" candidates that congress would then select from to decide the next President. They didn't expect the electoral college itself to determine the Presidency hardly ever (delegate George Mason is quoted as having said that the electoral college deciding the President was "not likely to happen twice in the same century"). They expected there to be multiple people vying for the Presidency, and gaining a clear majority of the EC votes was intended to be rare.

The EC was essentially a middle-ground. They didn't trust the general population to decide the President because frankly most of the population was extremely uneducated, and the fact that there was no real rapid communication across the country meant most of them wouldn't even know all the candidates who were running let alone their actual stances on issues. They also didn't want congress deciding it on their own because they were afraid it would be too easy for corruption and foreign meddling to run rampant.

The compromise was to have the electoral college "nominate" the top candidates from the general election, and then have congress decide among those top picks.

Okay yeah you definitely know more than me lol

Aristoph posted...

Well with advances in technology, the lack of education and inability to spread news across the country is no longer an issue. And we've already seen how it didn't prevent foreign meddling anymore due to those same technological advances. To be frank, the EC is out-dated, no longer useful, and at times downright harmful to our elections.

Agreed
---

Used to be ambivalent but after they let Trump ascend the presidency, whatever merit it had as a 'gatekeeper' went out the window and I would rather see it scrapped
---

I'm for it as long as my side wins
---

Prestoff posted...

Aristoph posted...

Houston posted...

And the founding fathers intended it.

The electoral college doesn't function even remotely how the founding fathers had envisioned it to work.

In a way it does because the founding father originally didn't even want the common people to actually vote. They were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority" and wanted only certain people to vote (the electoral college). In my opinion, the EC system is severely outdated. Hell, even Trump is against it.

It actually does work as intended.
States chose the electors, but are free to chose how.

Article 2 doesn't mention a popular vote for president at all, it just worked that out way, more or less.

Houston posted...

I think I'm for it. Since we're the "United States", every state should have a voice. And the founding fathers intended it.

I think I'm against it. Since we're the "United States," every state should be united with each other state.

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

Absolutely not. The EC was put into place so that Virginia (the most populous state at the time) could not override the rest of the country. And it worked then and it works now.

Theres no reason our whole country should be a slave to the whims of California. This would be true of any candidate, either Dem or GOP. Just in the last election, Trump was outvoted in CA by 4 million. Clinton won the popular by 3 mil. Why should the 49 other states, who voted for Trump by over a million votes, be completely nullified and made worthless by California?

That does not sound like every vote counting to me.

CA already have such a huge number in the EC and rightfully so, and if a candidate gets CA and still loses that means they were a real shit candidate.

The assumption seems to be that switching to a direct popular vote will somehow "cure" everything, but all that really happens is disillusioned voters in New York, California, and Texas having a reason to actually bother to vote, while the dynamic shifts from "blue state vs red state" to "urban vs everywhere else".

Most democrats right now are opposed to the electoral college because they want California to decide every election.

I understand the intention of the electoral college--to ensure that coastal cities don't determine every presidential election and leave the vast majority of farm/inland states completely voiceless.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Most democrats right now are opposed to the electoral college because they want California to decide every election.

here are the conservatives right on queue to let everyone know 5th grade was the last time they were proficient in math

jedisamurai posted...

Absolutely not. The EC was put into place so that Virginia (the most populous state at the time) could not override the rest of the country. And it worked then and it works now.

Theres no reason our whole country should be a slave to the whims of California. This would be true of any candidate, either Dem or GOP. Just in the last election, Trump was outvoted in CA by 4 million. Clinton won the popular by 3 mil. Why should the 49 other states, who voted for Trump by over a million votes, be completely nullified and made worthless by California?

That does not sound like every vote counting to me.

CA already have such a huge number in the EC and rightfully so, and if a candidate gets CA and still loses that means they were a real shit candidate.

So, basically youre against it because your candidate wouldve lost.

The people should have the right to decide on their ruler. Geographic location doesnt factor in. There are Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California and neither group gets any representation under the current system.

The race for the ruler of our country shouldnt be an arbitrary points game where 20% (being generous) of the country decides for the other 80%.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Most democrats right now are opposed to the electoral college because they want California to decide every election.

People who say this has a weird inability to understand the idea of every voter mattering equally.

Its really dumb.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Most democrats right now are opposed to the electoral college because they want California to decide every election.

People who say this has a weird inability to understand the idea of every voter mattering equally.

Its really dumb.

Every vote being equal only matters when they're voting the way I want.

This was at 38 to 10. Now it's 49 to 24. So after 38 to 10, the count was 11-14 in favor of 'for electoral college.' How does this happen? Statistically speaking, what are the chances that the trend would do a 180 like this? Hmmm. What went on here?

Anyone who supports the EC thinks empty land should have more votes than populated areas.
---

Absolutely for.

I'll use my own city's problem that was decades in the making. We let in a retirement community in the late 80s. It grew and grew until in this one section of area at the butt end of town there were now thousands of these retirees in this gated community. Excess money. Different priorities. And don't give one damn about anyone else in the city or their needs but themselves. Lots of people who are full of themselves on one end of town. They outnumber all the rest of us in the city. But they seemed to make it their mission to screw all the rest of us over. As one of the arrogant bastards flat out put it in an opinion piece in the local paper. "We know what's best." They were that arrogant.
4 of the 5 council seats are them. Every committee in the city is them. Prior to every election they hold their own in their death camp over there to decide amongst themselves who among them they would be installing as they voted as a group.
They embezzled a water bond to pay for a completely unnecessary new police station. Added taxes to pay for an "art district". Chased new businesses away. Closed old ones now that they controlled the business end of the city too. They fucked us all over for decades. More than I can write on here without it become 10x the size this post already is.

Until someone with enough money lawyered up. And they found that by a CA statute. If minorities are being disenfranchised in the city by not having a say on the city council, they the city by law must be districted. And those assholes being like 95% whites and all the rest of town being a pretty good mix of hispanic, black, asian and white.
Well the city got districted. They now have 1 seat out of 5 on the council. All their cronies got removed from all the city committees. They squirmed so bad. "We outnumber the rest of town. We know what's best. It's undemocratic." Well now we're not being screwed over anymore. No new taxes. No higher utility rates. No new codes. All of which didn't effect them or costs they all could easily absorb. So the hell with everyone else.

So. As I'm sure you get because it's as perfect an analogy as I can think of.
CA/NY. They outnumber everyone else. They also don't give a shit about the realities of the lives of anyone else. They should not have the final say on the country overall. They're the retirement community of rich assholes who think they know what's best for everyone.
---

Houston posted...

I think I'm for it. Since we're the "United States", every state should have a voice. And the founding fathers intended it.

You do realise that states that only get a couple of votes might as well not vote right? How the fuck is that fair.
---

It's an absurd fucking system whose original purpose was to give southern plantation owners power based on their slave populations. It distorts democracy and doesn't actually serve the purpose its current supporters say it does, which is to give every state a voice.

If every man, woman, and child in California and New York banded together to vote for a single candidate, they'd have two million fewer voters than Donald Trump got in 2016.
---

EternalDivide posted...

CA/NY. They outnumber everyone else.

lmao

supporting the EC is just a great indicator of how uninformed someone is

I say this in everyone of these topics. Proportional distribution of electoral votes based on the popular vote in that state. Winner take all is crap.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

I say this in everyone of these topics. Proportional distribution of electoral votes based on the popular vote in that state. Winner take all is crap.

But the electoral votes themselves are not proportional to population; Wyoming has ~1/80th California's population but 3/55ths of its electoral votes.
---

I'm against it. As an Illinois Republican, my vote for the presidency has effectively never mattered.
---

States should be like Maine or Nebraska where congressional districts vote on their electors. Then have whoever wins the popular vote in a state wins the two additional electors. Id prefer the purple districts in solid states have more of a say.

Texas would have been 24 for Trump and 14 for Clinton.
California would have been 7 for Trump and 48 for Clinton.
---

Prestoff posted...

Aristoph posted...

Houston posted...

And the founding fathers intended it.

The electoral college doesn't function even remotely how the founding fathers had envisioned it to work.

In a way it does because the founding father originally didn't even want the common people to actually vote. They were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority" and wanted only certain people to vote (the electoral college). In my opinion, the EC system is severely outdated. Hell, even Trump is against it.

Trump WAS against it, until it came out that it's the only reason he won (by the numbers, less people actually voted for him).
---

I live in Mississippi and am not a far right winger or Republican supporter. My vote means nothing because of the Electoral College. How is that fair or fair to some conservative in California or something?
---

Antifar posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

I say this in everyone of these topics. Proportional distribution of electoral votes based on the popular vote in that state. Winner take all is crap.

But the electoral votes themselves are not proportional to population; Wyoming has ~1/80th California's population but 3/55ths of its electoral votes.

Then make it proportional to population. I want to see politicians campaigning in the entire country. Id also like to see if a certain threshold isnt met, new candidates are chosen. Id be good with ranked choice also.
---

It's as useless and archaic as the concept of Daylight Savings Time but we keep it around because REASONS, TRADITIONS, and AMERICA.
---

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

Also, to add why Im saying change it to appear as close to a popular vote as possible is simple, you can market this version to conservatives because its still the EC. You get the ignorant on board because its still meh electoral college.
---

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
---

Every single person's vote should be equal

Why would a republican in California even bother voting? Or a democrat in Iowa?
---

The vote for President should be national and up to individuals. We have Congress and state governments for people worried about their state not having a voice.
---

You always see conservatives fighting for it because republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last five presidential election cycles
---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

You always see conservatives fighting for it because republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last five election cycles

I had a conversation with a conservative fellow who seemed to get quite unsettled at news of this national popular vote compact thing.

The way he tried to convince me that the EC was a good thing was "If we get rid of the EC then the Republicans will never win another election"
---

I'm for it, but there needs to be changes. For starters, the the electoral college needs to be eliminated or automated in that whoever wins automatically receive electoral votes, or points if you will. Don't have literal persons casting the votes. Then the distribution of electoral votes needs to be by proportion of the popular vote, not winner take all. 49/51 should be a near even split. This will give incentive for someone in a Red state to vote Blue and vice versa and weaken the strength of swing states in relative power to control the election outcome.
---

jedisamurai posted...

Theres no reason our whole country should be a slave to the whims of California

This is probably the most uninformed point for supporting it, How is California going to decide everything when they only get 2 senate votes.

In any case I don't see anything wrong with California with California running the country, by themselves they're the 5th biggest economy in the world and their tax dollars subsidize failing red states, not to mention they must be doing something right to attract so many people, why shouldn't they get to decide how the country is run?