Time to do away with the Electoral College (1 Viewer)

[Ursa M]

So it sounds like this "popular vote" is gaining traction. Hopefully the error of our ways will be remedied sooner rather than later.

Considering it would take a Constitutional Amendment, there is zero chance that the dozens of smaller states which would be screwed by this would go along with it.

I've never posted that you're right about anything before but....you're right. Those turkeys won't vote for Thanksgiving as long as their EC numbers outweigh the EC numbers from the bigger states.The best option might be for states themselves to decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, similar to what Maine (and IIRC Nebraska) does. At least then the minority voters in each state (regardless of party) would be represented. Republicans in NY and Democrats in TX would finally have a shout. And that has no chance either.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The best option might be for states themselves to decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, similar to what Maine (and IIRC Nebraska) does. At least then the minority voters in each state (regardless of party) would be represented. Republicans in NY and Democrats in TX would finally have a shout. And that has no chance either.

Right, this will never happen because states like to be pandered to. If you split up your electoral votes proportionally there's little reason for candidates to focus on you at all.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

 

[mad sweeney]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

It wasn't dumb at the time. It's outdated and it prevents third parties from having a snowball's chance in hell of getting a single electoral vote.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

It wasn't dumb at the time. It's outdated and it prevents third parties from having a snowball's chance in hell of getting a single electoral vote.

It was sorta dumb when the country started but I know they had to do a lot of dumb stuff to get the thing ratified (like giving all states equal representation in the Senate). Now it's just dumb.

 

[mad sweeney]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

It wasn't dumb at the time. It's outdated and it prevents third parties from having a snowball's chance in hell of getting a single electoral vote.

It was sorta dumb when the country started but I know they had to do a lot of dumb stuff to get the thing ratified (like giving all states equal representation in the Senate). Now it's just dumb.

I disagree with the first but wholeheartedly agree with the second.

 

[Sarnoff]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

So is democracy.

 

[Zow]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

So is democracy.

 

[Rich Conway]

So it sounds like this "popular vote" is gaining traction. Hopefully the error of our ways will be remedied sooner rather than later.

Considering it would take a Constitutional Amendment, there is zero chance that the dozens of smaller states which would be screwed by this would go along with it.

I've never posted that you're right about anything before but....you're right. Those turkeys won't vote for Thanksgiving as long as their EC numbers outweigh the EC numbers from the bigger states.The best option might be for states themselves to decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, similar to what Maine (and IIRC Nebraska) does. At least then the minority voters in each state (regardless of party) would be represented. Republicans in NY and Democrats in TX would finally have a shout. And that has no chance either.

If I was a turkey, I would vote against Thanksgiving too.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I've never posted that you're right about anything before but....you're right. Those turkeys won't vote for Thanksgiving as long as their EC numbers outweigh the EC numbers from the bigger states.

The best option might be for states themselves to decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, similar to what Maine (and IIRC Nebraska) does. At least then the minority voters in each state (regardless of party) would be represented. Republicans in NY and Democrats in TX would finally have a shout. And that has no chance either.

If I was a turkey, I would vote against Thanksgiving too.

Well that's pretty selfish of you. Need to think of the greater good here.

 

[saintsfan]

Gore should have won that election in a landslide. The fact that he didn't tells you what a horrible candidate he really was.

 

[Zow]

I've never posted that you're right about anything before but....you're right. Those turkeys won't vote for Thanksgiving as long as their EC numbers outweigh the EC numbers from the bigger states.

The best option might be for states themselves to decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, similar to what Maine (and IIRC Nebraska) does. At least then the minority voters in each state (regardless of party) would be represented. Republicans in NY and Democrats in TX would finally have a shout. And that has no chance either.

If I was a turkey, I would vote against Thanksgiving too.

Well that's pretty selfish of you. Need to think of the greater good here.

This country would be better off if people voted selfishly. Instead, far too many people think the president has a greater control of social issues than he does and value them far too much.

 

[saintsfan]

The Electoral College is not broken.

People can't accept that the 2000 election was a tie. It just was. The number of votes Gore "won" by were well within the statistical margin of error. Somebody had to win.

BTW, this is a pointless topic since it was pointed out that a Constitutional Amendment would need to be passed and most of the states would be screwed by going to a popular vote and would never pass the Amendment.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

it prevents third parties from having a snowball's chance in hell of getting a single electoral vote.

This & the fact that everyone not in a swing state is basicly wasting their vote on something pretty much already decided.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

What exactly needs to be fixed? This has always been a solution without a problem.

The problem is that it is a dumb way to pick a President.

It wasn't dumb at the time. It's outdated and it prevents third parties from having a snowball's chance in hell of getting a single electoral vote.

I don't believe it's outdates at all, and it has nothing to do with third party representation. In fact, this country has a pretty rich history of third party electoral votes on the national level in the midst of the college being an institution that governs it. The Republican Party was a Third Party at one time. But, again, this is a solution without a problem. If you really want more access for third party's what you need is different local rules. The electoral college is a representation of the several states, so get better ballot access in those states. That's where the "real problem" is if you find it to be a real problem.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Yeah, the electoral college is dumb, but it isn't the reason that third parties have trouble gaining traction. The big structural change to improve the chances of third parties would be instant runoff voting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So it sounds like this "popular vote" is gaining traction. Hopefully the error of our ways will be remedied sooner rather than later.

Considering it would take a Constitutional Amendment, there is zero chance that the dozens of smaller states which would be screwed by this would go along with it.

It doesn't need to take a constitutional amendment to effectively do away with the electoral college.

States are free to decide for themselves how to appoint their electors. Most states currently have a "winner-take-all" rule giving all their electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state. But if a state wanted to, it could just as easily give all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote throughout the entire country.

No state would do this unilaterally because it would just make itself kind of irrelevant to the presidential election.

But if a group of states with 270 collective electoral college votes made a pact to do this, it would totally work. You don't need permission of any of the swing states. As soon as a group states with 270 electoral college votes join the pact, all other states are entirely irrelevant.

So states can start forming a pact, passing bills saying that each state will give all electoral college votes to the nationwide popular-vote winner, with the practice going into effect as soon as the pact has 270+ electoral college votes among the participating states.

Oh, by the way, this is already happening. States with 165 electoral college votes have already joined the pact. Just need 105 more.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Take a Civics class Shizz.  

 

[MaxThreshold]

It doesn't need to take a constitutional amendment to effectively do away with the electoral college.

States are free to decide for themselves how to appoint their electors. Most states currently have a "winner-take-all" rule giving all their electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state. But if a state wanted to, it could just as easily give all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote throughout the entire country.

No state would do this unilaterally because it would just make itself kind of irrelevant to the presidential election.

But if a group of states with 270 collective electoral college votes made a pact to do this, it would totally work. You don't need permission of any of the swing states. As soon as a group states with 270 electoral college votes join the pact, all other states are entirely irrelevant.

So states can start forming a pact, passing bills saying that each state will give all electoral college votes to the nationwide popular-vote winner, with the practice going into effect as soon as the pact has 270+ electoral college votes among the participating states.

Oh, by the way, this is already happening. States with 165 electoral college votes have already joined the pact. Just need 105 more.

So this will effectively cut out smaller states so the big ones will decide every election, no?

I realize the push behind this ("my guy didn't win - we need to do something to guarantee this never happens again") but in reality if the roles were reversed these same people calling for the popular vote now would be insisting we KEEP the Electoral College.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So this will effectively cut out smaller states so the big ones will decide every election, no?

No, the popular vote would decide every election -- which means all states would count equally (in proportion to their population).

I realize the push behind this ("my guy didn't win - we need to do something to guarantee this never happens again") but in reality if the roles were reversed these same people calling for the popular vote would be insisting we KEEP the Electoral College.

This has nothing to do with left-versus-right stuff. The electoral college is just stupid. Politicians focus on campaigning in a small handful of swing states while the solid blue states and solid red states are ignored. WE WANT TO BE PANDERED TO AS WELL!!

It also seems to affect actual policies. According to this, swing states get more more federal grants, more federal disaster relief, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and other stuff than non-swing states do. (I don't know to what extent that claim would survive analysis that avoided cherry-picking and tried to control for possible confounders -- e.g., maybe swing states are coincidentally in more disastrous areas, etc.).

 

[ilikedwight]

No, the popular vote would decide every election -- which means all states would count equally (in proportion to their population).

This has nothing to do with left-versus-right stuff. The electoral college is just stupid. Politicians focus on campaigning in a small handful of swing states while the solid blue states and solid red states are ignored. WE WANT TO BE PANDERED TO AS WELL!!

It also seems to affect actual policies. According to this, swing states get more more federal grants, more federal disaster relief, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and other stuff than non-swing states do. (I don't know to what extent that claim would survive analysis that avoided cherry-picking and tried to control for possible confounders -- e.g., maybe swing states are coincidentally in more disastrous areas, etc.).

I would be fine with making it popular vote if we required ID to vote in every state. Would you agree to that?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would be fine with making it popular vote if we required ID to vote in every state. Would you agree to that?

We already require ID in every state, so sure.

If you mean specific forms of government-issued ID, I'd be okay with that if we made such forms of ID sufficiently easy to get. Right now, they are not.

 

[ilikedwight]

We already require ID in every state, so sure.

If you mean specific forms of government-issued ID, I'd be okay with that if we made such forms of ID sufficiently easy to get. Right now, they are not.

by required ID I mean "a means of proving a person's identity"

If we changed it to popular vote without requiring ID then it would be too easy to rig the election.

Btw, please watch this video

How white liberals really view black voters

 

[That one guy]

4 pages is a lot and, frankly, checking up on pigeon of the day is slightly higher on the priority list...

I am not a fan of direct democracy for president.  However, what's the opinion on the effect such a thing would have on 3rd parties?  Bigger uptick in representation or full-on squashing of their existence?  And that effect would bleed down to all levels of government, I'd imagine; perception is very much reality on politics 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

by required ID I mean "a means of proving a person's identity"

Yeah, that's what we already have. When you go to vote, they ask you what your name is, and you're legally required to answer truthfully. That's not mathematical proof, but it's legal proof.

 

[MaxThreshold]

No, the popular vote would decide every election -- which means all states would count equally (in proportion to their population).

This has nothing to do with left-versus-right stuff. The electoral college is just stupid. Politicians focus on campaigning in a small handful of swing states while the solid blue states and solid red states are ignored. WE WANT TO BE PANDERED TO AS WELL!!

Ok, so now instead of pandering to the battleground states, candidates would only pander to the big states (i.e population centers).  The keywords in your post "as well" really means "instead", IMO.  There would be absolutely no reason for candidates to visit any "fly over" state.

 

[ilikedwight]

Yeah, that's what we already have. When you go to vote, they ask you what your name is, and you're legally required to answer truthfully. That's not mathematical proof, but it's legal proof.

Lol okay I am done here. You're just trolling me right?

 

[DaVinci]

by required ID I mean "a means of proving a person's identity"

If we changed it to popular vote without requiring ID then it would be too easy to rig the election.

Btw, please watch this video

How white liberals really view black voters

Changing to a popular vote would make it harder to rig the election. Democrats would have to falsify a substantially larger number of votes to move the needle nationwide than they would in just Florida or Ohio.

 

[ilikedwight]

Changing to a popular vote would make it harder to rig the election. Democrats would have to falsify a substantially larger number of votes to move the needle nationwide than they would in just Florida or Ohio.

The large amount of illegals in CALI that vote would disagree here.

 

[Riversco]

It doesn't need to take a constitutional amendment to effectively do away with the electoral college.

States are free to decide for themselves how to appoint their electors. Most states currently have a "winner-take-all" rule giving all their electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state. But if a state wanted to, it could just as easily give all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote throughout the entire country.

No state would do this unilaterally because it would just make itself kind of irrelevant to the presidential election.

But if a group of states with 270 collective electoral college votes made a pact to do this, it would totally work. You don't need permission of any of the swing states. As soon as a group states with 270 electoral college votes join the pact, all other states are entirely irrelevant.

So states can start forming a pact, passing bills saying that each state will give all electoral college votes to the nationwide popular-vote winner, with the practice going into effect as soon as the pact has 270+ electoral college votes among the participating states.

Oh, by the way, this is already happening. States with 165 electoral college votes have already joined the pact. Just need 105 more.

Let's go with the worst case scenario here.  This law takes effect and we decide the president by popular vote.  The republican party begins to campaign differently.  They make a huge push to win votes in urban areas where currently they really don't bother.  because of this, they get competitive enough in urban areas to secure a permanent majority of votes.  You have just created a permanent republican majority.  

Are you happy with this change?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Let's go with the worst case scenario here.  This law takes effect and we decide the president by popular vote.  The republican party begins to campaign differently.  They make a huge push to win votes in urban areas where currently they really don't bother.  because of this, they get competitive enough in urban areas to secure a permanent majority of votes.  You have just created a permanent republican majority.  

Why then we would need an Electoral College to prevent that!

 

[Da Guru]

While we are at it why do the small states have two senators? Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire really not need more than one for all three. Wyoming, North and South Dakota could be handled by one. Give California, Texas and NY 7-8  each.

 

[Riversco]

Why then we would need an Electoral College to prevent that!

Well yes that is the question I'm asking to MT.  Does he want us to pick president by popular vote because he thinks its the right thing to do?  Or does he want it just because he thinks it might help his side?  So I created a scenario where republicans always win because of this change to see what he thinks.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Well yes that is the question I'm asking to MT.  Does he want us to pick president by popular vote because he thinks its the right thing to do?  Or does he want it just because he thinks it might help his side?  So I created a scenario where republicans always win because of this change to see what he thinks.

Oh, I know what you did there.  I was just being sarcastic.

 

[Riversco]

Oh, I know what you did there.  I was just being sarcastic.

Iknow.  He just isn't answering so I'm bumping it.

 

[bagger]

Lol okay I am done here. You're just trolling me right?

What's so magical about a photo id that kids get fake copies of? You think Gertrude is going to decipher what a real id versus fake?

 

[bagger]

Let's go with the worst case scenario here.  This law takes effect and we decide the president by popular vote.  The republican party begins to campaign differently.  They make a huge push to win votes in urban areas where currently they really don't bother.  because of this, they get competitive enough in urban areas to secure a permanent majority of votes.  You have just created a permanent republican majority.  

Are you happy with this change?

Check mate dude. You just totally trapped Maurile. He will have no way to combat your ingenious hypothetical.

 

[Dr Oadi]

No, the popular vote would decide every election -- which means all states would count equally (in proportion to their population).

This has nothing to do with left-versus-right stuff. The electoral college is just stupid. Politicians focus on campaigning in a small handful of swing states while the solid blue states and solid red states are ignored. WE WANT TO BE PANDERED TO AS WELL!!

It also seems to affect actual policies. According to this, swing states get more more federal grants, more federal disaster relief, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and other stuff than non-swing states do. (I don't know to what extent that claim would survive analysis that avoided cherry-picking and tried to control for possible confounders -- e.g., maybe swing states are coincidentally in more disastrous areas, etc.).

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Everyone keeps crying about the little states being left out of the election process.  How does that work?  Just think of all the RNC votes in California or New York that don't count now!  Or, the DNC votes in Texas that don't count at the moment.  How are those people in those states represented?  

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Well yes that is the question I'm asking to MT.  Does he want us to pick president by popular vote because he thinks its the right thing to do?  Or does he want it just because he thinks it might help his side?  So I created a scenario where republicans always win because of this change to see what he thinks.

If the majority of the people want the Republican candidate to be president then the Republican candidate should be president.

I've hated the electoral college for a long time.  I've looked hard for evidence that it still makes sense but the harder I look the more I'm convinced that it ought to be done away with.  Even disregarding the broad change in communications over the last 200 years, the electoral college we have now is merely a misappropriated points system derived from something that was never meant to act that way.

 

[jon_mx]

It doesn't need to take a constitutional amendment to effectively do away with the electoral college.

States are free to decide for themselves how to appoint their electors. Most states currently have a "winner-take-all" rule giving all their electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state. But if a state wanted to, it could just as easily give all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote throughout the entire country.

No state would do this unilaterally because it would just make itself kind of irrelevant to the presidential election.

But if a group of states with 270 collective electoral college votes made a pact to do this, it would totally work. You don't need permission of any of the swing states. As soon as a group states with 270 electoral college votes join the pact, all other states are entirely irrelevant.

So states can start forming a pact, passing bills saying that each state will give all electoral college votes to the nationwide popular-vote winner, with the practice going into effect as soon as the pact has 270+ electoral college votes among the participating states.

Oh, by the way, this is already happening. States with 165 electoral college votes have already joined the pact. Just need 105 more.

Sure, states that are solidly blue like this idea.  I don't see picking up too many more states.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's go with the worst case scenario here.  This law takes effect and we decide the president by popular vote.  The republican party begins to campaign differently.  They make a huge push to win votes in urban areas where currently they really don't bother.  because of this, they get competitive enough in urban areas to secure a permanent majority of votes.  You have just created a permanent republican majority.  

Are you happy with this change?

I, for one, would be ecstatic. Because in order to secure that permanent urban majority, Republicans would have to abandon the unbelievably stupid social issue stances they've adopted that are my primary problem with the party.  

If Republicans went true fiscal conservative and true social laissez-faire, they might never lose another election.

 

[MaxThreshold]

If the majority of the people want the Republican candidate to be president then the Republican candidate should be president.

I've hated the electoral college for a long time.  I've looked hard for evidence that it still makes sense but the harder I look the more I'm convinced that it ought to be done away with.  Even disregarding the broad change in communications over the last 200 years, the electoral college we have now is merely a misappropriated points system derived from something that was never meant to act that way.

Seems like we only hear about doing away with the electoral college when Democrats lose the election but win the popular vote.  When they win the election, we don't hear a peep about the Electoral College.

This is why I think it's such a disingenuous argument.

 

[Henry Ford]

Seems like we only hear about doing away with the electoral college when Democrats lose the election but win the popular vote.  When they win the election, we don't hear a peep about the Electoral College.

This is why I think it's such a disingenuous argument.

I think that's because no Republican has lost the election and won the popular vote in any of our lifetimes.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Seems like we only hear about doing away with the electoral college when Democrats lose the election but win the popular vote.  When they win the election, we don't hear a peep about the Electoral College.

This is why I think it's such a disingenuous argument.

I started this topic back in 2012 after Obama won.  

 

[shadrap]

At this moment I have no problem with anything.   I'm drunk, high, listening to tunes & figuring whether my 2 teams in the FFPC will get in the playoffs.   Can't watch, just can't.  This is much better.

Carry on.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Seems like we only hear about doing away with the electoral college when Democrats lose the election but win the popular vote.  When they win the election, we don't hear a peep about the Electoral College.

This is why I think it's such a disingenuous argument.

This thread was started in 2012 

 

[MaxThreshold]

I think that's because no Republican has lost the election and won the popular vote in any of our lifetimes.

Which is why everyone knows that if the tables were turned Democrats would be fighting to keep the Electoral College.

 

[Henry Ford]

Which is why everyone knows that if the tables were turned Democrats would be fighting to keep the Electoral College.

I don't think most Democrats these days consider "Democrat" as identifying for them as most Republicans do.