Poll of the Day > what happens if trump wins the popular vote and biden only wins because of EC

(+) Yeah! (+)

can both parties agree to finally get rid of it and just stop letting you dum dums vote at all?

---

I hope he does just for revenge purposes

---

The drama would be entertaining.

---

Then leftists would finally agree that it should stay.

---

Zeus posted...

Then leftists would finally agree that it should stay.

Nah I'd be happy with the result but still be consistent that we should go by popular vote.

Well... we had that in Canada. The party that won last time realised theyd lose if they got rid of it, so they didnt, and now they run minority control.

Not to mention (not) getting rid of the ID-not-required law. That also would have hurt them because then non-citizens cant vote. Thank God for jurisdictions in Alberta forcing people to show ID... but it still wasnt enough.

---

The Democrats would suddenly start liking the Electoral College and the next Republican president would abolish it. Neither of these parties stand on principle.

I, for one, would pinch my brow, accept Biden over Trump, continue to be disappointed with a lot of people, and furthermore resume my ongoing belief that the EC needs to go.

---

Entity13 posted...

I, for one, would pinch my brow, accept Biden over Trump, continue to be disappointed with a lot of people, and furthermore resume my ongoing belief that the EC needs to go.

I really think popular vote should win

---

Jen0125 posted...

I really think popular vote should win

Sure. And I think we need a better system than what we have.

---

liberals would flip their position

so...it'll just be another normal day

---

if we really want democracy then the single transferable vote system would probably be best

i, however, am not sold on democracy in any form, so fuck it

---

Entity13 posted...

Sure. And I think we need a better system than what we have.

I think we need MORE PARTIES

---

Noop_Noop posted...

if we really want democracy then the single transferable vote system would probably be best

i, however, am not sold on democracy in any form, so fuck it

I, for one, am sold only on ruling the entire world. Democracy is a nice theory, but not a nice practice; same for republics.

---

Jen0125 posted...

I think we need MORE PARTIES

Yeah, breaking the two party thing is a must. It's been the two we have ever since the Republican Party elevated itself from Third Party status and got elected by a fluke having to do with there being two Democratic parties at the time. We need our system to allow for other parties to come and actually reflect the attitudes of the people, should the facade of democracy be desired any further.

---

Jen0125 posted...

I think we need MORE PARTIES

I wanna rock and roll all night and party every day

---

Wanded posted...

liberals would flip their position

so...it'll just be another normal day

Irony.

Democrats have won what 5 of the last 6 popular votes. They need to abolish the electoral college, it makes some votes count more than others.

Oh it would be such bitter irony if that is indeed what were to happen. I will be laughing my ass off at Trump supporters telling them to get over it.

---

Noop_Noop posted...

if we really want democracy then the single transferable vote system would probably be best

i, however, am not sold on democracy in any form, so fuck it

Yeah, our country is not a democracy, it's a hypocrisy.

---

Lil69Leo posted...

Democrats have won what 5 of the last 6 popular votes. They need to abolish the electoral college, it makes some votes count more than others.

Farmers rise up

---

Trump is on the path to lose the popular vote again despite leading all the remaining states...

zebatov posted...

Well... we had that in Canada. The party that won last time realised theyd lose if they got rid of it, so they didnt, and now they run minority control.

I don't feel like that's entirely accurate. The Liberals did indeed promise election reform, but the issue was that there was no way they could get everyone to agree what it should be.

Conservatives benefit the most from the current system and wouldn't approve any change to it.

The Liberals would basically never lose an election again if they got ranked ballot like they want.

The rest of the parties all want proportional representation, particularly the NDP as they often have far fewer seats than the popular vote indicates they should. Hell, the Green Party should have 22 seats based in popular vote compared to the 3 they actually got. This would make it so we'd never have a majority government ever again, which could be argued to be either a good or bad thing.

Basically, the Liberals knew they wouldn't get Ranked, and the current system is a lot better for them than proportional. The other parties wouldn't settle for ranked over proportional as it's only slightly better for them, so there was nothing left to discuss and the promise was scrapped.

---

Dynalo posted...

I don't feel like that's entirely accurate. The Liberals did indeed promise election reform, but the issue was that there was no way they could get everyone to agree what it should be.

Conservatives benefit the most from the current system and wouldn't approve any change to it.

The Liberals would basically never lose an election again if they got ranked ballot like they want.

The rest of the parties all want proportional representation, particularly the NDP as they often have far fewer seats than the popular vote indicates they should. Hell, the Green Party should have 22 seats based in popular vote compared to the 3 they actually got. This would make it so we'd never have a majority government ever again, which could be argued to be either a good or bad thing.

Basically, the Liberals knew they wouldn't get Ranked, and the current system is a lot better for them than proportional. The other parties wouldn't settle for ranked over proportional as it's only slightly better for them, so there was nothing left to discuss and the promise was scrapped.

Cons would have won, though, if the election was based on votes. Im not sure why they wouldnt agree to that reform.

---

We need a whole new everything, honestly.

It's just a silly system with silly results

In fact, I am now the president just because I said so.

AMA

Soup_or_Science posted...

We need a whole new everything, honestly.

It's just a silly system with silly results

In fact, I am now the president just because I said so.

AMA

What is your stance on making a national holiday dedicated to waffles?

---

Entity13 posted...

What is your stance on making a national holiday dedicated to waffles?

Only the blue kind

---

And before you ask, yes, I am going to be the most fair and equality-conscious President ever, because I said so.

These losers want to wait for votes to roll in and all that, but I was first, because I claimed it, so I have dibs. You snooze you lose. That's fair.

Also, I'm electing Jen as vice president, because, equality
(whether she likes it or not).

We're now off to a great start.

Entity13 posted...

What is your stance on making a national holiday dedicated to waffles?

That's a stupid question.

Fuck if I know, ask Jen.

I'd still be against the EC.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

I'd still be against the EC.

This. The EC is still anti-democratic and needs to go.

---

Lil69Leo posted...

Democrats have won what 5 of the last 6 popular votes. They need to abolish the electoral college, it makes some votes count more than others.

So you want to take the power from farmers and blue collar workers and give it to the city folk?

---

Muscles posted...

So you want to take the power from farmers and blue collar workers and give it to the city folk?

Every time I see or hear that question asked, I feel like it's a loaded question, despite the legitimacy of concerns involved. Such concerns do need to be addressed.

That said, however, I will also say that:

1) the question appears to assume city folk are all Libs or Progressives while farmers and blue collared folk are all Conservative; by which I mean this may be an inaccurate representation that feeds into itself to make itself true out of the our inherent divisions in core beliefs and sources of information.
2) doing away with the EC as we know it presumes to give the power of voice directly to these people rather than take it away; same for city folk. The EC isn't a guarantee to represent their wants in a given election. In fact, we didn't so much vote Biden and Trump this year as we voted for the two major parties--also keeping power away from third party voters entirely--which just so happen to use Biden and Trump as their standards. As such, the winning party will probably vote for their standard-bearing candidate, because what reason would they have to choose otherwise when said standard-bearer won their party the shiniest seat in the country?

---

Muscles posted...

So you want to take the power from farmers and blue collar workers and give it to the city folk?

Yes. Specifically the extra power they have for no reason. I want every single person to count just as much as everyone else.

The EC system actually takes away ALL power from so many votes. If your state is heavily one way, your vote doesn't matter, you might as well stay home, even if you are gonna vote for the candidate that will end up with the most votes. It entirely throws out the losing votes from any state.

---

The electoral college was made because little states like Rhode Island are mad that their population isn't as high as California so by their logic California would decide the next President instead of both of them. But this also proves your vote doesn't mean as much as it should because it only "influences" the electoral college.
IIRC Hilary actually won the physical votes in 2016 but because Trump had more electoral votes he was awarded Presidency.

---

racingboy123 posted...

The electoral college was made because little states like Rhode Island are mad that their population isn't as high as California so by their logic California would decide the next President instead of both of them. But this also proves your vote doesn't mean as much as it should because it only "influences" the electoral college.
IIRC Hilary actually won the physical votes in 2016 but because Trump had more electoral votes he was awarded Presidency.

This is objectively false. California wasn't a state when the ec was made. The EC was made because at the time of this nations founding we had people who were worth 3/5 of a person for representation in government.

zebatov posted...

Cons would have won, though, if the election was based on votes. Im not sure why they wouldnt agree to that reform.

Because usually, that isn't what happens. Ranked ballot is ideal for the Liberals because they're very often people's second choice. They'd basically never lose another election again that way, which is why nobody else agreed to it. Conservatives rarely win the popular vote, so FPTP is best for them. That they did win the popular vote this time is unusual, and not something on which they should base their position on electoral reform.

Proportional representation (basically operating by popular vote), then, would effectively guarantee there'd never be another majority government and ensure that all of the smaller parties that rarely win significant numbers of seats (NDP, PQ, Green, and I guess even the PPC might have managed one seat this time) would have a non-negligible voice in the government. This would be the best representation of the will of the people, as well as the most effective defense against extreme policies (regardless of which way they lean), but it runs into the downside of there only being so many hours in a day and it taking rather a long time to hear every single proportionally-presented viewpoint on every issue. Personally, I still like the idea of prop rep more than either alternative, but it's certainly not without issues of its own, and in practice there's a good chance it'd lead to more coalitions to streamline parliament a bit (ultimately giving voters less choice).

---

zebatov posted...

Cons would have won, though, if the election was based on votes. Im not sure why they wouldnt agree to that reform.

"Won" wouldn't exactly be how I'd define that. They would be the defacto leader, sure, but they would also have fewer seats that they do now, the overall opposition would be significantly stronger (NDP + Green Party combined wouldn't be that far behind them).

It would make it much harder for them to push across any of their agendas because no one wants to work with the Conservatives. They would be the leader, but the Liberals and NDP would make all the decisions. They're better off with the current system and trying to get a majority, something that is nearly impossible under proportional representation, which is why they don't want it.

---

i'm liberal af and i hate the electoral college. if they do away with it next election, i'd be all for it, ok?

---

I think it would be a big mess. There will be a huge uproar.

---