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

(+) Yeah! (+)

OhhhJa posted...

Those two cities determine the electorate of their entire respective states though which makes up basically 20% percent of the population of the country. So you have a select few people in these major cities that impact their entire state which impacts entire elections

Oh so let's get rid of the electoral college

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

and when coca cola and pepsi turn elsewhere for the bulk of their HFCS, where is the entire center of the country? keep selling off production to the lowest bidder.

ow else are you going to subjugate the entire country into welfare to get them to vote the way you want?

can't have a strong and vibrant agriculture industry, they won't bend the knee to globalist rule.

would they even bother getting their HFCS elsewhere?
they only use it in North America.

The electoral college works because the point of the federal government was never meant to have all the power. It was really only supposed to act as a figurehead as well as fulfill some responsibilities that apply to the country as a whole like defense and the treasury. But we've allowed the fed to continue to gain more power making the office of the president more powerful than it ever should have been. We literally built a government based upon the idea that having one ruler living thousands of miles away was a bad thing.

State governments in contrast are, to my knowledge, entirely popular vote from the Governor to judges to your local sheriff. Your local issues could be addressed by your local government and your opinion as a citizen meant more and your voice could and should be heard by your representatives. We would then elect representatives by popular vote that would go on to represent our interest in federal matters. That's how it's supposed to work.

The Fed was never meant to represent the 'will of the people' but the will of its constituent states which are elected and represented by the will of its people. I don't need the president to represent me in my day to day life. In fact, I really don't need him to represent me in anything but going and talking to foreign leaders. That should really be his only job.

The tyranny of the majority is a bad thing and it is a thing. The founding fathers didn't want that so they built a government in which the tyranny of the majority (or any tyranny from a federal government) was something that should be extremely hard to achieve.

Why people continue to advocate for giving power to the fed when you have someone like Donald in power will continue to baffle me. Take power away from those dipshits in Washington and give it back to your state.

---

What's with all the doofuses in this topic that think NYC and LA make up more than half the population?
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

What's with all the doofuses in this topic that think NYC and LA make up more than half the population?

I think they literally think the entire west coast is the state of LA and the entire east coast is the state of NYC

---

kukukupo posted...

Why should someone who lives in NY/LA decide how someone in Montana lives? The two aren't comparable. The EC works just fine.

Thankfully, people who live in NY/LA don't have a say in Montana's state and local governments.

---

Clench281 posted...

You literally just described a problem that would be resolved by getting rid of the winner take all method of allocating electoral college votes

he really did lmao

---

likehelly posted...

he really did lmao

Well, I know you guys love manufacturing things to attempt to ridicule me for but I never said I was for the electoral college. I think the system isn't completely broken though. Just needs some adjustments. Or just hopefully the cesspool that is LA is underwater soon

Lokarin posted...

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

Already they have 2 senators and states with in some cases 40+ times their population or more have 2 senators. I think that is enough power myself, 2 senators representing a population of 550k or something like that, vs. 2 senators representing nearly 40 million.

I also will point out that the election every year is decided by a handful of swing states mostly. So this is a system that really does not give small states like Wyoming more power, because their 3 electoral votes are taken for granted by the Republican party, similar to a smaller state that votes Democratic nearly every time.

Jen0125 posted...

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

According to wikipedias page on presidential wins it looks like it's pretty even between dems and reps when it comes to popular vote vs win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

it's also interesting to note that clinton had 49% of the popular vote, yet had 70% of the electoral college.

I dont think electoral college rework is a partizen issue. I don't think our election system works very well. CGP Grey had a good video about the problems with first past the post voting.

whole thing needs a rework imo.

---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

According to wikipedias page on presidential wins it looks like it's pretty even between dems and reps when it comes to popular vote vs win.

You know not having the majority of the popular vote isn't the same as not winning the popular vote, right?
---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

According to wikipedias page on presidential wins it looks like it's pretty even between dems and reps when it comes to popular vote vs win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

it's also interesting to note that clinton had 49% of the popular vote, yet had 70% of the electoral college.

I dont think electoral college rework is a partizen issue. I don't think our election system works very well. CGP Grey had a good video about the problems with first past the post voting.

whole thing needs a rework imo.

Well the winner take all thing makes that even more lopsided, it doesn't benefit the presidential candidate to dominate any state since even if you get 90% of the votes in a state they still get all the electoral votes. If they get 50.00001% of the vote they get all the electoral votes.

I mean even if you keep the electoral college system you could make it so it's not winner take all.

So how many fires are going to be set tomorrow?

---

GanonsSpirit posted...

You know not having the majority of the popular vote isn't the same as not winning the popular vote, right?

No. that makes no sense. explain.

---

Ogurisama posted...

So how many fires are going to be set tomorrow?

we won't even know the results for a few days so any fires would be premature

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

we won't even know the results for a few days so any fires would be premature

surely that will stop agitators, agent provocateurs, and anarchists!

---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

No. that makes no sense. explain.

In that Clinton election you mentioned, his Republican opponent, Bob Dole, got 40.7% of the popular vote. Clinton still got more votes, even though he didn't get the majority of the vote.
---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

No. that makes no sense. explain.

Votes aren't limited to two candidates. When people vote for 3 or more things, you can receive the most votes, but still end up with less than 50%.

---

VitalGetPrank posted...

She's been competent her entire career, why would that change now.

she sure competently threatened women bill slept with to keep their mouth shut
---

OhhhJa posted...

Well, I know you guys love manufacturing things to attempt to ridicule me for but I never said I was for the electoral college. I think the system isn't completely broken though. Just needs some adjustments. Or just hopefully the cesspool that is LA is underwater soon

so what the fuck are you arguing

---

No one managed to provide a single good argument for the electoral college ITT.

I look forward to you stooges trying to justify faithless electors in a month.
---

Clench281 posted...

Votes aren't limited to two candidates. When people vote for 3 or more things, you can receive the most votes, but still end up with less than 50%.

The word for this is plurality.

Anyway, there isn't a good argument for the electoral college.

---

I would heavily modify at least. Do a ranked ballot and allocate electoral points based on rank. Works for Maine, why not everywhere else.

---