Poll of the Day > I've never heard a good argument for the electoral college.

(+) Yeah! (+)

And I doubt I ever will.
---

4 years later and you guys are still pissed about Hillary lol

There's a problem with it where its benefit is turned into a penalty.

The idea of giving the lesser loser states a smidgen more power so that they aren't ruled by LA and NY is a good idea.

Bad idea is making it so that seats are awarded on an all or nothing basis, meaning that 60% of a state votes R and 40% votes D... it counts as 100% voting R, which is definitely NOT the spirit of the college

---

I remember when I was 10 and my Dad tried to explain the electoral college to me, and my initial reaction was "wow. that's really stupid"

---

I've never heard a good argument against the electoral college.

And I doubt I ever well. Of course, if your case your doubt is based on the fact you go through life with your hands on your ears shouting loudly to drown out the sound of reason, whereas I listen and find those arguments wanting.

---

Zeus posted...

I've never heard a good argument against the electoral college.

And I doubt I ever well. Of course, if your case your doubt is based on the fact you go through life with your hands on your ears shouting loudly to drown out the sound of reason, whereas I listen and find those arguments wanting.

My argument against the college is the all-or-nothing /first past the post system... it means that not only can very tight races result in a massive change in seats, it also means that even if a third party got majority votes but not 50% (like if the vote is 40%/30%/30%)... they still get 0 seats

---

Zeus posted...

I've never heard a good argument against the electoral college.

It pretty much guarantees that the will of the voting population is not accurately reflected in government. That should be a priority for any democratic nation.

---

adjl posted...

It pretty much guarantees that the will of the voting population is not accurately reflected in government. That should be a priority for any democratic nation.

It would suck if Canada didn't have their college equivalent... the entire country which has massively different social, political and even literal climates, would be ruled by basically downtown Toronto

---

It makes more sense in the time that it was implemented back when there was a stronger influence on the fact that our nation was a republic and democracy wasnt as much of a concern, especially considering only white land owning men could vote

In the modern era its a dysfunctional relic and an embarrassing reminder of how antiquated our constitution is

the fact that we are still using the same constitution from centuries ago is kind of stupid. Amendments help but its practically impossible for those to happen anymore

---

The idea that California and New York deciding the election for the country is stupid because every single person's vote is still worth the same.

With the electoral college, several states worth of votes are completely irrelevant and the entire thing is decided by the rust belt and snowbird states.

---

Lokarin posted...

Bad idea is making it so that seats are awarded on an all or nothing basis, meaning that 60% of a state votes R and 40% votes D... it counts as 100% voting R, which is definitely NOT the spirit of the college

This i agree with

OhhhJa posted...

4 years later and you guys are still pissed about Hillary lol

It's not even just Hillary. Republicans consistently lose the popular vote but win presidential elections. It's ridiculous.

---

I'll give ya a good argument, wealthy southern plantation owners refused to ratify the Constitution without it.

---

Lokarin posted...

The idea of giving the lesser loser states a smidgen more power so that they aren't ruled by LA and NY is a good idea.

It's not. Why should someone's vote cost less because they live in LA or NY.

Zareth posted...

I'll give ya a good argument, wealthy southern plantation owners refused to ratify the Constitution without it.

The winner take all method of allocating electors is not required by the constitution. Winner take all is the problem people here are mostly describing.

The electoral college itself only introduces the issue of state electors not being perfectly in proportion to their population.

---

Zareth posted...

I'll give ya a good argument, wealthy southern plantation owners refused to ratify the Constitution without it.

Who fucking cares? There's no reason we still use that Constitution. It's ridiculous when people act like the US Constitution is worth using in 2020. It was written by rich white men who had no conception of what life would be like today.

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Who fucking cares?

Just saying why it exists, not justifying it's continued existence.

---

Lokarin posted...

My argument against the college is the all-or-nothing /first past the post system... it means that not only can very tight races result in a massive change in seats, it also means that even if a third party got majority votes but not 50% (like if the vote is 40%/30%/30%)... they still get 0 seats

Which is a completely different system entirely.

adjl posted...

It pretty much guarantees that the will of the voting population is not accurately reflected in government. That should be a priority for any democratic nation.

First, the US is a democratic republic. Second, the current system conveys the will of the voting public, as does pretty much any system that allows the public to vote. And, on a technical standpoint, it could be a democracy WITHOUT the general public having any say in the presidency (ie, you'd vote for people who in turn would be the ones to select the president). There are countless ways to run a democracy. And the idea that the popular vote is somehow the best version of the system for any nation is just silly.

Clench281 posted...

The electoral college itself only introduces the issue of state electors not being perfectly in proportion to their population.

Which isn't an "issue," it's a benefit.

---

SkynyrdRocker posted...

It's not. Why should someone's vote cost less because they live in LA or NY.

why should the issues of two metropolises rule the entire nation?

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

why should the issues of two metropolises rule the entire nation?

You've had weeks to work on your argument, yet you still are trying to push the same one?

How long until you resort to suggesting that people in cities should be starved again

---

Clench281 posted...

You've had weeks to work on your argument, yet you still are trying to push the same one?

How long until you resort to suggesting that people in cities should be starved again

it would remind them that they cannot live in a vacuum... or should we just wait for another Sandy to put NYC back on the edge of savagery?

---

adjl posted...

It pretty much guarantees that the will of the voting population is not accurately reflected in government. That should be a priority for any democratic nation.

We are a Republic...

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

why should the issues of two metropolises rule the entire nation?

Because they're the majority of the population. Why does it matter where they're located?
---

Here's one:

Groupthink in highly populated areas could be misinformed about the greater interests of what keeps the country afloat. A bunch of rich fucks living on the beaches that influence the millions around them could make decisions that are in poor interests to the agriculture and other industries they rely on from other parts of the country.

DDirtyDastard posted...

Groupthink in highly populated areas could be misinformed about the greater interests of what keeps the country afloat. A bunch of rich fucks living on the beaches that influence the millions around them could make decisions that are in poor interests to the agriculture and other industries they rely on.

Good thing the fucking senate exists, huh?
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Because they're the majority of the population. Why does it matter where they're located?

what does a banker know about the combine harvester that collects the wheat from which he makes his bread?

---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Good thing the fucking senate exists, huh?

We're talking about a different branch of government here. I'll refer you back to the three branches of US Government. Pretty sure it's basic high school education. You at least have a GED, right?

LegalEagle did a pretty good basic summation of and some cons (both intended and unintended) in a video for those who don't know much about the US electoral college:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYVw9lPiCHQ

I do find his point about Texas becoming more and more blue over the years eventually destroying any hope of Republicans ever winning an election again in the distant future interesting. If that pans out, it will be hilarious watching Republicans who simped for the electoral college for years suddenly start screaming about how anti-freedom it is, lol.

---

OhhhJa posted...

4 years later and you guys are still pissed about Hillary lol

I'm sure you'd feel the same way about the Electoral College if Bush and Trump got more votes and still lost the election.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

why should the issues of two metropolises rule the entire nation?

Why should rural America rule over the majority?

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

why should the issues of two metropolises rule the entire nation?

2/3 of the country live in cities, not just LA and NY. Why shouldn't 2/3 of the country have their voices heard?

---

Zeus posted...

I've never heard a good argument against the electoral college.

Of course not. It's an excuse for the Republicans to steal the election. Always has been.

There would never be another Republican president without the electoral college.

---

One obvious problem with the electoral college is that under this system, some people, such as Republicans in California, or Democrats in Missippi don't vote because their vote doesn't matter to them. California has been Blue every election since 1988. That doesn't seem likely to change. Some republicans don't vote because they don't see the point. Now, I'd argue you cannot gain momentum if you never attempt to move. If you want to start a blue wave in Missippi or a red wave in California, you need to vote. So voting has a point no matter where you are. But I've heard people don't vote because their state is so far one way they don't bother.

are you suggesting that the "flyover states" and "the rust belt/bible belt" should simply pledge its fealty to the coastal masters despite the coastal master's total dependency on outside sources to sustain itself? this relationship should only work one-way because, numbers that vote my way?

numbers that simply cannot exist without the "bumpkins" that you totally know better than?

---

Does whiskey think we get all of our food product from America?

---

Jen0125 posted...

Why should rural America rule over the majority?

just because you choose to starve yourself for attention occasionally, doesn't mean half the country...and families with kids want to as well.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Does whiskey think

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

just because you choose to starve yourself for attention occasionally, doesn't mean half the country...and families with kids want to as well.

You understand we import produce and goods from other countries right?

---

Let's be real here.

Pandemic has put things in perspective.

If anything, big cities should have LESS electoral college discretion.

It's the farmers keeping this country alive. It's the energy producers.

Hollywood and Wall Street can go get fucked, they're the reasons why we're here in the first place.

If we want to reform the electoral college, let's have a conversation about who actually contributes most to this society and who's benefiting from it.

I think we'd be able to figure out pretty quickly who needs to be put in check.

And why do you think large cities wouldn't vote to support American business and farmers??

---

Jen0125 posted...

You understand we import produce and goods from other countries right?

so that's why so many people in NYC were dumpster diving behind grocery stores in the wake of Hurricane Sandy 3 days after it hit? if only i realized how fast boats from china were...

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

If we want to reform the electoral college, let's have a conversation about who actually contributes most to this society and who's benefiting from it.

What do you do for a living?

---

Sarcasthma posted...

What do you do for a living?

Currently, I work in tech. Before the pandemic I was in entertainment.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

so that's why so many people in NYC were dumpster diving behind grocery stores in the wake of Hurricane Sandy 3 days after it hit? if only i realized how fast boats from china were...

What does dumpster diving have to do with importing food? You know the dumpster food was already imported right? You know the people in the large cities pay larger share of the taxes that end up going to subsidize American farms, right?

---

Jen0125 posted...

And why do you think large cities wouldn't vote to support American business and farmers??

the number of entrepreneurs and businesses fleeing California aside from megacorporations would make a normal person reflect...

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

Currently, I work in tech. Before the pandemic I was in entertainment.

So you're one of the people you're complaining about

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

Currently, I work in tech. Before the pandemic I was in entertainment.

So by your own metric you contribute nothing to society.

---

Jen0125 posted...

And why do you think large cities wouldn't vote to support American business and farmers??

If only we supported agriculture. We could even have subsidies to support such industries. And income tax collected in states like NY could be used to pay for part of those subsidies. Oh well like that'll ever happen

---

papercup posted...

So by your own metric you contribute nothing to society.

Tech is the necessary evil. Yes.

Jen0125 posted...

What does dumpster diving have to do with importing food? You know the dumpster food was already imported right? You know the people in the large cities pay larger share of the taxes that end up going to subsidize American farms, right?

signing a check their arm was twisted to sign is NOT the same thing as running a combine harvester for 18 hours. the guys you now defend writing those checks were the same people you wanted to burn at the stake during OWS, so don't even act like you're the solid as a rock principled voice in this shit.

---