Current Events > If we abolish the Electoral College, the Republican party will never win again.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Is that true or is that false?

---

maybe more republicans will show up to vote in blue states, won't know until we get rid of it

false. never underestimate the ability of the democratic party to self-sabotage.

---

Depends what we replace it with. But a major part of Republicans winning every year (in both the presidency and the senate) is over representing rural parts of the US.

Its an important thing to consider, a straight popular vote would render most of the countries issues in the middle of the country to be pretty much ignored, so we can't do that.

Never's a long time and speaking in absolutes is dumb

---

Proto_Spark posted...

Its an important thing to consider, a straight popular vote would render most of the countries issues in the middle of the country to be pretty much ignored, so we can't do that.

This is false but ok

---

gotta get rid of gerry mandering and voter suppression otherwise yeah

Proto_Spark posted...

Depends what we replace it with. But a major part of Republicans winning every year (in both the presidency and the senate) is over representing rural parts of the US.

Its an important thing to consider, a straight popular vote would render most of the countries issues in the middle of the country to be pretty much ignored, so we can't do that.

all the more reason to give the states back all the power washington has stolen over the last 150 years.

---

Sounds good to me.

---

ZMythos posted...

This is false but ok

It wouldn't completely make them irrelevant, but campaigning in the rural parts of the US would be way less worthwhile and would see vastly less attention.

I agree that its overrepresented as it is, but there needs to be something to help actually make sure that less popular issues are still dealt with.

Proto_Spark posted...

It wouldn't completely make them irrelevant, but campaigning in the rural parts of the US would be way less worthwhile and would see vastly less attention.

As opposed to the current system that favors swing state issues?

---

Proto_Spark posted...

It wouldn't completely make them irrelevant, but campaigning in the rural parts of the US would be way less worthwhile and would see vastly less attention.

They barely see any as is.

Proto_Spark posted...

I agree that its overrepresented as it is, but there needs to be something to help actually make sure that less popular issues are still dealt with.

What are these less popular issues that are related to living in rural areas, not just things that are more/less popular in rural areas.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

It wouldn't completely make them irrelevant, but campaigning in the rural parts of the US would be way less worthwhile and would see vastly less attention.

I agree that its overrepresented as it is, but there needs to be something to help actually make sure that less popular issues are still dealt with.

give more votes to minorities too then

---

Hinakuluiau posted...

As opposed to the current system that favors swing state issues?

Definitely not, I think there definitely needs to be an improvement to the current system, but I don't think a straight popular vote is the right choice.

Even just the electoral system in the UK/Canada which is basically the electoral college on a smaller scale would help in terms of proportion I think.

Choco posted...

give more votes to minorities too then

I agree. Voter suppression is stupid and shouldn't be allowed to happen. Here in Canada everyone is automatically registered to vote and you don't need to travel very far to the nearest polling location.

Anteaterking posted...

What are these less popular issues that are related to living in rural areas, not just things that are more/less popular in rural areas.

I don't know, but that's the point since I don't live in bumble**** Indiana, but they have local problems and don't relate to what problems in my area are, so I shouldn't get a bigger say just because I live in a more populated area.

And yeah, less popular issues is a widespread thing, not an exclusive to rural areas thing, that's just bad communication on my part.

Proto_Spark posted...

I don't know, but that's the point since I don't live in bumble**** Indiana, but they have local problems and don't relate to what problems in my area are, so I shouldn't get a bigger say just because I live in a more populated area.

And yeah, less popular issues is a widespread thing, not an exclusive to rural areas thing, that's just bad communication on my part.

You don't get a bigger say under the popular vote. You get an equal say.

---

Maybe they could still win if they would shift leftward a bit and gain some voters who are currently moderately liberal.

---

They will. They just have to adapt.

Strong and weak.
Rich and poor.
Liberal and conservative.

These are all things that exist by standard of comparison. If some cataclysmic event wiped out every racist, homophobe, and transphobe, the definition of conservative would reset itself and the Republican party would still exist.

To anyone who thinks the Republican party will drown clinging to anchor of race and/or orientation based prejudice, that's a heaping load of wishful thinking. They'll still be around.

That said, the Republican party should distance itself from bigotry. I hope they do so in time. And I hope closet bigots on the left will be outed or forced to change as well.

Anteaterking posted...

You don't get a bigger say under the popular vote. You get an equal say.

Its not really an equal say though, because if your state has its own unique problem with 1/2 a million people in it, the state next door with 8 million people who aren't suffering whatever the issue is is going to drown out your voice and you just aren't going to be heard at all.

I get now that those 1/2 a million people are being given too loud a voice, but just tipping the scales the other way isn't really solving the issue. I think the electoral college can still work if its just a bit more proportional (ie. if 1/3 of California votes for Trump, he should get a 1/3 of those votes, and when 45% of Texas voted for Biden, he should've gotten 45% of those votes)

If this isn't widespread electoral reform and literally just the president, then sure whatever, the senate also overvalues rural states.

well, a conservative party will exist. it could be a modernized version of the Republicans. it could be a coalition of moderate Republicans and Libertarians. it could also be the right wing of the Democrats. that's what happened last time.

---

Easily true

---

For the record, I'm in favor of abolishing the elector college. Their one purpose is to prevent a worst case scenario and they elected one against the will of the popular vote.

Hard to say, and it has nothing to do with adaptation. The EC creates a lot of disincentive to vote in certain areas seen as always going one way or another. A raw popular vote changes that dynamic as votes that didn't matter much now do. I don't know if the current popular vote ratio would hod, or if it could shift red as every R is California now doesn't see it as a waste of time for them to vote for what their urban areas would otherwise dominate. Same holds true in red states, though they always think they can flip those so the shit may not be as strong that way.

---