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

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.

while it's unfair that the EC raises the value of votes in rural states, it's way less relevant than winner take all turning a 51/49 win into a 100% handover.

but a proportional distribution system would be dependent on state constitutional changes (ie never gonna happen, esp in battlegrounds who have vested interest in remaining batlegrounds)
---

Living in a deep red state, it often feels like the EC ultimately erases my vote and the votes of anyone else who lives in a purple district. OK district five worked it's ass off to elect Kendra Horn in 2018, giving us our first Democrat in like thirty years, but even then, the margin was extremely tight. In winner-take-all districts like this, the EC guarantees that roughly half of us won't count. That's not terribly representative.
---

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.
---

VitalGetPrank posted...

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?

Holy fuck this is dumb.
---

NoMeLx22x posted...

VitalGetPrank posted...

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?

Holy fuck this is dumb.

---

NoMeLx22x posted...

VitalGetPrank posted...

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?

Holy fuck this is dumb.

Your uninformed opinion is duly noted.

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
---

VitalGetPrank posted...

NoMeLx22x posted...

VitalGetPrank posted...

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?

Holy fuck this is dumb.

Your uninformed opinion is duly noted.

Your opinion is that one state should decide everything and that the other 49 states in the country of "The United States" just have to accept the fact that apparently their opinions are worthless cause they don't live in California.

And yet our opinions are uninformed?
---

More Republicans live in California than people live in the smaller states. Why should their votes not matter?
---

NoMeLx22x posted...

VitalGetPrank posted...

NoMeLx22x posted...

VitalGetPrank posted...

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?

Holy fuck this is dumb.

Your uninformed opinion is duly noted.

Your opinion is that one state should decide everything and that the other 49 states in the country of "The United States" just have to accept the fact that apparently their opinions are worthless cause they don't live in California.

And yet our opinions are uninformed?

Go back to school and work on your reading comprehension, I said I wouldn't have an issue with one state deciding everything not that things should be done that way. In any case it's a moot point because California doesn't have the population to elect the president by themselves and even if they did California only has 2% representation in the senate so it's impossible for them to dictate the country's actions.

What part of this went over your head?

Conceptually, I've no problem with it just like I think that having a Senate is a good thing.

In practice it's bollocks, because most states have opted into a "winner take all" system causing a range of issues like voter apathy of blues/reds in hardcore red/blue states, and the special interests of swing states to be prioritized over the special interest of the secure states.
---

I find it hilarious how some people think California would literally decide every election and nowhere else would matter if we got rid of the EC. It has nowhere near the population to do that.
---

K181 posted...

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

There are dozens of us!
---

Also, are people saying California would decide the election without the EC not considering that there are people in Cali who vote Republican? Trump got 31% of the vote there in 2016 and usually when Republican candidates are slightly better than an actual real life puddle of liquid dog feces in an orange human-shaped bodysuit, they usually get more.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Also, are people saying California would decide the election without the EC not considering that there are people in Cali who vote Republican? Trump got 31% of the vote there in 2016 and usually when Republican candidates are slightly better than an actual real life puddle of liquid dog feces in an orange human-shaped bodysuit, they usually get more.

They forget that for nearly a decade California had a Republican governor and before that California was considered a swing state
---

Should either be proportional vote for EC or eliminate it.

Its outdated for various reasons that have been discussed here. Abolishing the winner-take-all system will actually give power to red voters in coastal states and blue voters in flyover states. Guess which population is higher.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Abolishing the winner-take-all system will actually give power to red voters in coastal states and blue voters in flyover states. Guess which population is higher.

States would be meaningless in presidential elections. The dynamic would likely be urban vs rural, with the suburbs being the 'swing' factor.

Questionmarktarius posted...

States would be meaningless in presidential elections.

And?
---

Doom_Art posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

States would be meaningless in presidential elections.

And?

All that changes is the boundaries that politicians pander to.

Questionmarktarius posted...

All that changes is the boundaries that politicians pander to.

...And?
---

Doom_Art posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

All that changes is the boundaries that politicians pander to.

...And?

What have we accomplished then?
Is it really worth the process of amending the constitution just to get politicians to show up in Bakersfield?

the EC is affirmative action for rural states

toss it
---

It's very strange that one side of our political spectrum expects to win every single election, and if they lose just one, why we have to change the system that they had no issue winning in previously.

I don't want to play any board game or video game with you guys. That's just competitive to a point that is unhealthy. Imagine playing Monopoly with someone like that. "Well I'm losing this one so I wanna change the rules so that they can help me in this current game"
---

Caution998 posted...

It's very strange that one side of our political spectrum expects to win every single election,

If they consistently have the majority of public support, that expectation is pretty reasonable.

For example, I don't imagine you have any issue with the belief among capitalists that they should win every election.
---

Antifar posted...

Caution998 posted...

It's very strange that one side of our political spectrum expects to win every single election,

If they consistently have the majority of public support, that expectation is pretty reasonable.

You literally have no proof that is the case. Just some people who are loud about their beliefs and polling which is unreliable and would never be considered hard evidence in any other form of life.

Trying to change the rules because you're losing currently is like playing a board game with my 11 year old nephew. When he starts losing he wants to change the rules.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

What have we accomplished then?

The guy with the more votes wins? The majority of the country chooses who is in charge?

That's kinda the point.

Caution998 posted...

You literally have no proof that is the case.

They've won the popular vote in all but one election in the last 30 years
---

Yes and California and New York state shouldn't decide the fate for the rest of the 48 other states. They have larger populations and most people from those states have similar life experiences due to being in the same geographical area.

If one is brought up elsewhere, you tend to have different opinions and that's OK. Sheer popular vote hurts the smaller states. That's taking away their voice.

This is what the founding fathers intended. The states should all be equal regardless of size or number of people living in them.
---

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.
---

Caution998 posted...

Yes and California and New York state shouldn't decide the fate for the rest of the 48 other states. They have larger populations and most people from those states have similar life experiences due to being in the same geographical area.

If one is brought up elsewhere, you tend to have different opinions and that's OK. Sheer popular vote hurts the smaller states. That's taking away their voice.

This is what the founding fathers intended. The states should all be equal regardless of size or number of people living in them.

Abolishing the winner-take-all system will actually give power to red voters in coastal states and blue voters in flyover states. Guess which population is higher.

---

You must think I was born yesterday if you expect me to believe that Democrats, in this extremely harsh political climate, are looking out for Republicans' best interests.
---

Caution998 posted...

You must think I was born yesterday if you expect me to believe that Democrats, in this extremely harsh political climate, are looking out for Republicans best interest.

Because we all know you are looking out for the best interests of others.
---

Caution998 posted...

You must think I was born yesterday if you expect me to believe that Democrats, in this extremely harsh political climate, are looking out for Republicans' best interests.

Its more of a commentary on your completely flawed premise.
---

Caution998 posted...

Yes and California and New York state shouldn't decide the fate for the rest of the 48 other states. They have larger populations and most people from those states have similar life experiences due to being in the same geographical area.

If one is brought up elsewhere, you tend to have different opinions and that's OK. Sheer popular vote hurts the smaller states. That's taking away their voice.

This is what the founding fathers intended. The states should all be equal regardless of size or number of people living in them.

Get rid of the EC then. All it does is increase inequality between states by giving a few of them all the power. By eliminating it, no state can control anything regarding the presidential election.
---

I worded that very poorly.

The size and amount of people are already accounted for with the amount of electorates they get.

fenderbender321 posted...

The electoral college does not benefit any party. It only influences how they campaign and to a smaller degree what policies they support. So overall the tangible effect is really only a variation in strategy. So I could go either way, though I like the electoral college because it gets the candidates to put on speeches in cities outside of New York and Los Angeles.

And this...so much this.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

The electoral college does not benefit any party. It only influences how they campaign and to a smaller degree what policies they support. So overall the tangible effect is really only a variation in strategy. So I could go either way, though I like the electoral college because it gets the candidates to put on speeches in cities outside of New York and Los Angeles.

Well obviously it benefits republicans. Wyoming will always go republican because it's all white people in the middle of nowhere. They get 3 votes which is hugely disproportioned to Cali's amount of votes based on population. You might have heard this by now. Everyone should anyway. It's unjust. This benefits republicans. Maybe something else benefits democrats? Idk. You tell me. I'd love to know. Either way, there's no way the system is just PERFECT AND ALL REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE UNTOUCHABLE IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION. OH YEAH THAT MAKES SENSE. WE MANAGED TO MAKE A SYSTEM THAT'S TOTALLY FAIR. WE'RE SSOOOOOOO ADVANCED. hahahahahah ffs.

Caution998 posted...

I worded that very poorly.

The size and amount of people are already accounted for with the amount of electorates they get.

fenderbender321 posted...

The electoral college does not benefit any party. It only influences how they campaign and to a smaller degree what policies they support. So overall the tangible effect is really only a variation in strategy. So I could go either way, though I like the electoral college because it gets the candidates to put on speeches in cities outside of New York and Los Angeles.

And this...so much this.

There's no reason to campaign in a lot of states with the EC. No one has to go to, say, Kansas after primaries because everyone knows how they will vote so its a waste of time. While if the EC was eliminated, now you have a reason to go to those places because picking up every vote there you can actually has value.
---

Against, specifically the electors, there's absolutely no reason to be for it. The whole state representation thing doesn't even apply as you can keep that but get rid of the electors.
---

But with the EC it's always interchangeable.

Last election we had a SOLID blue state, like PA, suddenly become a battleground state and changing colors. Now PA has got to be an important part for both Trump and whoever wins the primary for the Democrats. Arizona is now a "purple" so that will be somewhere they may go as well. Florida, Ohio; they will be invested in. Texas will be invested in since there are some blue counties popping up. It's constantly evolving. That can be seen as a good thing.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

The electoral college does not benefit any party. It only influences how they campaign and to a smaller degree what policies they support. So overall the tangible effect is really only a variation in strategy. So I could go either way, though I like the electoral college because it gets the candidates to put on speeches in cities outside of New York and Los Angeles.

Well obviously it benefits republicans. Wyoming will always go republican because it's all white people in the middle of nowhere. They get 3 votes which is hugely disproportioned to Cali's amount of votes based on population. You might have heard this by now. Everyone should anyway. It's unjust. This benefits republicans. Maybe something else benefits democrats? Idk. You tell me. I'd love to know. Either way, there's no way the system is just PERFECT AND ALL REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE UNTOUCHABLE IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION. OH YEAH THAT MAKES SENSE. WE MANAGED TO MAKE A SYSTEM THAT'S TOTALLY FAIR. WE'RE SSOOOOOOO ADVANCED. hahahahahah ffs.

I get why people think this, but this line of logic assumes all things else are equal, which is never the case. If you change the rules, the candidates will change how they campaign and what policies they support/propose to enhance their chances of winning.

And I hope you are not insulting people who live in Wyoming. Lots of damn good people there.

Ok, I wouldn't mind if they changed their strategy to fit the popular vote. So I'm totally in favor of that. As technology advances and people mingle over the internet or can be transported from city to city more quickly, it's just going to cause the shitty rural subculture to melt into the urban culture. And at that point it will DEFINITELY make no sense to have stupid electoral college. It already is too old.

Yes Kaution, we understand you dont know how things work and that you only support the EC because your side won last.

The EC means that everyones vote are worthless unless you live in a battleground state. idk how that exactly helps the people.
---

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.

EC constantly evolves. I guarantee we will see Texas blue in our lifetime. No question about it. If I were the winner of the Democrat primary, I'd try my hardest to get Texas.

If I were Trump, I'd start campaigning in California. Why not? He could easily point out how he could improve things for the homeless and how the current laws are failing them. Let the parties start investing in other states and try to switch colors. It can happen.
---

Caution998 posted...

But with the EC it's always interchangeable.

Last election we had a SOLID blue state, like PA, suddenly become a battleground state and changing colors. Now PA has got to be an important part for both Trump and whoever wins the primary for the Democrats. Arizona is now a "purple" so that will be somewhere they may go as well. Florida, Ohio; they will be invested in. Texas will be invested in since there are some blue counties popping up. It's constantly evolving. That can be seen as a good thing.

Would they not be going there even without the EC? The populations in those areas are rather significant, so ignoring them would likely result in a loss even if one party had an unpopular candidate; the more support each major candidate has, the more places they would each have to go to in an attempt to win.
---

Or we can drop an outdated relic of the 1800s and have a modern election.

But that upsets the right; that being progress.
---

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.
---

The EC is stupid. Land is already overvalued compared to people when it comes to the Senate. Its the 21st century and we dont need shitty methods of conservative control.
---

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
---