Current Events > Why does the ******* Electoral College still exist?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Solar_Crimson posted...

Note that before he won, Trump was completely in favor of removing the Electoral College. Turns out, the EC is the only reason he won.

Trump says a lot of stupid shit. What's the point of bringing this up?

---

KillerSlaw posted...

I love how CE is full of people who scream all the time about democracy, being for the little people and antifacism while constantly saying that the south and midwest shouldn't have a say, sometimes shouldn't even be allowed to vote, mostly because they're uneducated and beneath them.

Yeah this thread is so full of the usual cringe and edge that CE is well know for regurgitating when it comes to politics. It's sad and hilarious at the same time.

---

7 states passed the national popular vote interstate compact before 2016; it is a myth that no one cared about the EC until Trump won.
---

KillerSlaw posted...

I love how CE is full of people who scream all the time about democracy, being for the little people and antifacism while constantly saying that the south and midwest shouldn't have a say, sometimes shouldn't even be allowed to vote, mostly because they're uneducated and beneath them.

One of the best things is you can go to college for literally anything, and it somehow makes you more qualified to vote.

---

Let's join the European Union. I hear there's a spot open.

---

shnangyboos posted...

One of the best things is you can go to college for literally anything, and it somehow makes you more qualified to vote.

or you be some uneducated ignorant mommas basement incel and think you are intellectually superior to people with degrees because you are embraced in mgtow bs

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

or you be some uneducated ignorant mommas basement incel and think you are intellectually superior to people with degrees because you are embraced in mgtow bs

Someone needs a hug

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

or you be some uneducated ignorant mommas basement incel and think you are intellectually superior to people with degrees because you are embraced in mgtow bs

Are college educated and this nonsense the only two options you're aware of?

---

KillerSlaw posted...

Trump says a lot of stupid shit. What's the point of bringing this up?

He brings it up so he can deflect and not answer the question because we all know the answer.

Also how many of you that want the EC to be done away with live on the east or west coast?

---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Note that before he won, Trump was completely in favor of removing the Electoral College. Turns out, the EC is the only reason he won.

......which means what exactly? Peoples opinion on something would of course change depending on if they benefited from it or not.

---

Banana_Cyanide posted...

Also how many of you that want the EC to be done away with live on the east or west coast?

I live in Florida. And amazingly, I'm not too keen on the notion that my vote counts for more than most other Americans.

---

Banana_Cyanide posted...

Also how many of you that want the EC to be done away with live on the east or west coast?

i would guess 80%

since that's the percentage of americans who live on the east or west coast

---

cuz if there is no electoral college wouldn't new york city be voting for the president and no one else

---

Chunkey Simmons posted...

cuz if there is no electoral college wouldn't new york city be voting for the president and no one else

Anywhere that has a major airport, pretty much

---

KillerSlaw posted...

I love how CE is full of people who scream all the time about democracy, being for the little people and antifacism while constantly saying that the south and midwest shouldn't have a say, sometimes shouldn't even be allowed to vote, mostly because they're uneducated and beneath them.

This lol

---

KillerSlaw posted...

I love how CE is full of people who scream all the time about democracy, being for the little people and antifacism while constantly saying that the south and midwest shouldn't have a say, sometimes shouldn't even be allowed to vote, mostly because they're uneducated and beneath them.

indica posted...

How does this help the conversation in any way? You sound like you not only have nothing to add, but don't even understand what's being discussed. Not saying that's true, just what I gather from your statement.

I mean he literally used the term representative republic so yes, he has no idea what hes talking about.

---

Chunkey Simmons posted...

cuz if there is no electoral college wouldn't new york city be voting for the president and no one else

This fucking topic is killing my brain cells left and right.

8 million people in NYC
235 million people of voting age in the U.S.

Ill let you connect the dots and answer your own question.

---

clyde_frog posted...

This fucking topic is killing my brain cells left and right.

8 million people in NYC
235 million people of voting age in the U.S.

Ill let you connect the dots and answer your own question.

Don't forget the 2.8 million New Yorkers that voted red in 2016

Without the Electoral college, every individual voter in the podunks would have the same power and influence as a person who lives in Mnahattan. And that's the way it should be.

---

Banana_Cyanide posted...

He brings it up so he can deflect and not answer the question because we all know the answer.

Also how many of you that want the EC to be done away with live on the east or west coast?

I live in Kansas and I have always thought the EC was an archaic, unnecessary system that marginalized votes from all but a handful of swing states.

As a Kansan my vote means literally nothing. If I vote Democrat it doesn't matter because Kansas always goes Red. Even if I vote Republican it doesn't matter because Kansas always goes Red and my vote doesn't change that.

You will never convince me that popular voting is less fair than a system that directly makes my vote functionally meaningless.

---

There are more Trump voters in California than any state aside from Texas and Florida
---

Article 2 is based on a couple simple assumptions:

1. The president isn't particularly important. Largely an international figurehead, safetyvalve for an overzealous congress, and military general as needed.
2. The states pick the president. Article 2 didn't specify a popular vote, nor even suggests one. States just pick a few electors any way they want, and those electors vote for the president.

Antifar posted...

There are more Trump voters in California than any state aside from Texas and Florida

That's merely a function of populations, California's population is approximately 33% larger than Texas, and twice Florida, and New York, and over 3 times Pennsylvania(the 5'th most populous). Also, Clinton got twice as many votes in California then Trump.

---

Because the founding fathers saw this day and wanted to anger all of Cemen everywhere, All of them.

mustachedmystic posted...

That's merely a function of populations, California's population is approximately 33% larger than Texas, and twice Florida, and New York, and over 3 times Pennsylvania(the 5'th most populous). Also, Clinton got twice as many votes in California then Trump.

So it's okay those voters have no say?

---

Gheb posted...

So it's okay those voters have no say?

Read what I said in post 70. I'll make it easier by restating it. Every voter would have the same say!

---

mustachedmystic posted...

Read what I said in post 70. I'll make it easier by restating it. Every voter would have the same say!

Fair enough.

---

i understand why conservatives want to preserve the aspect of the EC that gives a mild EV-per-vote bonus to rural states that always vote for them

i don't understand why they want to preserve the first-past-the-post aspect of it that makes PA, VA, MI, WI, and FL matter more than the rest of the country combined

one would think a proportionally distributed EC would be the republican wet dream: appearing to care about voters while also retaining competitive advantage

---

Sackgurl posted...

proportionally distributed EC

It would be closer, if congress didn't stop growing at 435 for some reason.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It would be closer, if congress didn't stop growing at 435 for some reason.

I'm not saying that I'm for, or against expansion of the house, but if it was never set at 435, they'd have to meet in a small arena do do their business.

---

Here's a fun fact: Hillary Clinton received 13.3 million votes in NY and California, just about 10 percent of the total. Her victory in those states amounted to 84 electoral votes, 15.6% of the total. The significance of her performance there was inflated by a system that erases the 40 percent who didn't vote for her in those states.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

I'm not saying that I'm for, or against expansion of the house, but if it was never set at 435, they'd have to meet in a small arena do do their business.

there's no reason to cap the EC the same way though. aside from how our constitution was written obviously.

---

EC works exactly like its suppose to. Nothing wrong, doesn't need removed. Sorry it didn't go your way this time.

---

Gheb posted...

I live in Kansas and I have always thought the EC was an archaic, unnecessary system that marginalized votes from all but a handful of swing states.

As a Kansan my vote means literally nothing. If I vote Democrat it doesn't matter because Kansas always goes Red. Even if I vote Republican it doesn't matter because Kansas always goes Red and my vote doesn't change that.

You will never convince me that popular voting is less fair than a system that directly makes my vote functionally meaningless.

I live in California and want the Electoral College to stay. Maybe they can modernize it so that a larger portion of the electoral votes goes to the candidate with the most votes in the state and the runner up gets a smaller portion.

---

Hinxray posted...

EC works exactly like its suppose to.

It was supposed to inflate the power of slave owners, so I'm not sure that's really true.

---

Intro2Logic posted...

It was supposed to inflate the power of slave owners, so I'm not sure that's really true.

well, now it inflates the power of white supremacists

so it kind of is still true

---

Sackgurl posted...

i understand why conservatives want to preserve the aspect of the EC that gives a mild EV-per-vote bonus to rural states that always vote for them

i don't understand why they want to preserve the first-past-the-post aspect of it that makes PA, VA, MI, WI, and FL matter more than the rest of the country combined

one would think a proportionally distributed EC would be the republican wet dream: appearing to care about voters while also retaining competitive advantage

It's been three decades since they've had a non-incumbent candidate who actually managed to win the popular vote. You don't really have to look beyond that to find their motivation for supporting the EC.

---

it, like the two houses of congress, was introduced to persuade the small states to join the union

nowadays it just serves to occasionally keep urban tyranny in check

---

The-Apostle posted...

Maybe they can modernize it so that a larger portion of the electoral votes goes to the candidate with the most votes in the state and the runner up gets a smaller portion.

Any state is free to do that, right now. It's just that most don't.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Any state is free to do that, right now. It's just that most don't.

not having it happen all at once turns it into a game of chicken, though, where there are only penalties for going first

---

The electoral college doesnt go far enough to be honest. There should be additional electoral college votes to represent groups currently being tyranny'd by the majority.

Extra EC votes for black people
Extra EC votes for religious minorities
Extra EC votes for the lower class

Etc.

---

Irony posted...

Because without it most states don't even matter in the elections

Most shouldn't.

---

Sackgurl posted...

not having it happen all at once turns it into a game of chicken, though, where there are only penalties for going first

Maine and Nebraska already went first.

Hmm Hillary Clinton said that we need to respect the results of the election process in 2016.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/24/clinton-calls-trump-a-sore-loser.html

So I say we need to take her advice and we need to respect the election process.

To say you wont respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy, Clinton told a rally at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.

So no, we need to keep the electoral college.

Pretty clear a lot ofmpeoplw in favor of the Electoral College here are just Republicans from red states who also don't understand the actual voting population. Slightly over half of all eligible voters in America vote for President, I think that number goes even lower for midterms. We have the lowest voter turnout in the world or at least in the west. Getting rid of the Electoral College to make an actual fair voting system won't all of a sudden make "omly the coasts matter." It will mean everyone's vote everywhere will count.

Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 by three million votes. Three million. Over 100 million people didn't vote at all. How many people don't bother voting in the first place because they aren't from one of a handful of swing states? I can guarantee you that there are more conservatives in blue states that don't then there are liberals in red states that don't vote. If we change the system so people know that their vote actually matters then more people will vote. Instead of 55% of the population voting in 2016 that will skyrocket to 75% at least.

Sure there will always be people that won't bother, but how many millions more will feel like their voice actually matters now? This will in turn make voter turnout higher for midterms as well since they will matter more. It would change the way candidates have to campaign as well, they won't be able to just take a red or blue state for granted anymore as there are millions of people from those states who's vote now counts. Which means in the end maybe an eventual end to tribalism as whoever wants to win will have to appeal to a majority, not just push one extremist position or another, but something most people can compromise on and live with. You know, the whole fucking point to democracy in the first place.


---

Gamerguymass posted...

It will mean everyone's vote everywhere will count.

most people live on the coasts, so this means more votes on the coasts will count.

i think flyover state republicans view coastal republicans as as much of a threat from within as they view democrats as a threat from without.

---

Gamerguymass posted...

Over 100 million people didn't vote at all. How many people don't bother voting in the first place because they aren't from one of a handful of swing states? I can guarantee you that there are more conservatives in blue states that don't then there are liberals in red states that don't vote.

that doesn't matter to me though, if I decide to vote just because no one else has, that will still only be one vote

---

People who live their entire lives inside cities shouldnt be the only votes that matter.


---

solosnake posted...

People who live their entire lives inside cities shouldnt be the only votes that matter.

what percent of the votes that matter should they be

---