If The US Needed a Better Excuse To Abolish The Electoral College...

[AZgl1500]

So Hilary won the popular vote but trump is President because of the electoral college. Still want to abolish it?

is this the question you said I did not answer?
I am baby sitting the wife in hospital, she is very ill, I am trying to keep my brains from getting bored to tears by bouncing across about 10 forums.... sorry if I am not keeping track of a particular thread.

"the Oklahoman"

The EC's original impetus for being was to ensure that states with small populations, like Wyoming and Montana can get their correct measure of salt at the polling place.

Today, I am happy for the way it worked out.

In several other elections, I was pissed because "I was not pleased" with the results.

Will it ever be changed? I doubt it.

 

[dontpanicbobby]

True that.

I'm not a guide anymore. But you do live in Oklahoma, right? Conversation me.

 

[Deleted User]

I for one, think the Electoral College system needs to be abolished.

Once upon a time, before the Internet, it was hard for a lot of folks to get educated on the issues.

no so much anymore, and the popular vote ought to be the determining factor now.

I'll go for the popular vote, as long as Hillary isn't running. The Clinton Foundation is the 6th New York Mafia Family. They should change their last name to Corleone.

 

[AZgl1500]

In most past election cycles, the popular vote would have satisfied me quite well.
This time, Not So Much, and I am happy that the EC worked as it did "this time".

I recall a Bush election where the EC did horrible things IMO... but I don't count when it comes to things like that.

in all but two elections in past decades, I have had to vote "against" the villainous one, rather for "for the best one".

 

[Bg260]

 

[Andrew Cole]

The Electoral College system works well because it ensures that the country isn't governed by the sheer show of strength of the most powerful states. Don't forget - the US is exactly that... 'United States.' They vary enormously in character and needs.

The 'popular vote' moaners don't have an argument and here's why...

If your state is a sure-fire Democratic state then lots of the Democratic voters there will be lazy and stay at home on polling day. The same for Republicans. Why bother to show up to the fight if you've already won, right?

On the other hand... if your vote goes directly into the pot of 'winner take all' then you might not stay at home if the outcome is less certain.

I don't know how the result of a 'winner take all' vote would have worked out but it would NOT have been the same numbers that voted in the 'Electoral College' system.

Also - there are different ways of campaigning if you decide to dump the current system, so there's that, too.

It's not a perfect system but the alternatives are worse.

 

[Andrew Cole]

I think there should be a minimum level of understanding of the issues being voted on...

That's pretty scary stuff...

First of all, who gets to disseminate the information that allows for a 'level of understanding' of any given issues?

Next, who decides on the level of understanding required before a person can register to vote?

And what about if I don't understand the issues that don't affect me but want a voice on the one issue that I do understand and that does affect me?

Finally... which issues are the ones that we have to understand before we are allowed to vote? All of them?

 

[zuben el genub]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

BTW, what happens if he loses the lawsuits he's engaged in?

 

[Davdi]

Impeachment?

 

[psionandy]

The 'popular vote' moaners don't have an argument and here's why...

If your state is a sure-fire Democratic state then lots of the Democratic voters there will be lazy and stay at home on polling day. The same for Republicans. Why bother to show up to the fight if you've already won, right?

On the other hand... if your vote goes directly into the pot of 'winner take all' then you might not stay at home if the outcome is less certain.

I don't know how the result of a 'winner take all' vote would have worked out but it would NOT have been the same numbers that voted in the 'Electoral College' system.
.

Ah.. but in that case.. the Lazy people would have had to get up and vote... as their vote would have counter. So presumably more people would have voted... Surely if more people vote, that would be more democratic... and isn't that a good thing?



(i'm sure there's something I'm missing here, so feel free to tell me where i'm wrong.... )

 

[Andrew Cole]

I entirely agree with you and you have made my point for me.

 

[psionandy]

Ah.. Ok then... changing it for the next election... (so everyone knows what the consequences of their lazyness) is a good idea then?

(for the presidential vote only...)

 

[Nuckchooking]

Ah.. but in that case.. the Lazy people would have had to get up and vote... as their vote would have counter. So presumably more people would have voted... Surely if more people vote, that would be more democratic... and isn't that a good thing?



(i'm sure there's something I'm missing here, so feel free to tell me where i'm wrong.... )

The only issue I can think of with a winner take all system is that the vote would largely be decided by big cities with large populations and easily accessible polling stations.

That means that the vote would almost be entirely decided by large cities such as new York and LA, so the smaller more rural districts would definitely feel that their votes didn't count

It's obviously not a perfect system since it was designed for several candidates not two but I think the popular vote isn't the right solution.

 

[psionandy]

Again.. I'm British, and our system is pretty much, definitely, absolutely not even close to perfect.... And you shouldn't even try to change your system now, i'm only talking about the next election (whenever that may be, presumably 2020)

But if there are more people in New York and LA, then why should their vote count for less than someone in a more rural district. I agree that there is a need to balance out the interests of all the states, but isn't this what the senate and congress is for?

(If I'm right let me know, if i'm completely wrong please tell me why, as its the only way i'll know)

 

[AZgl1500]

The only issue I can think of with a winner take all system is that the vote would largely be decided by big cities with large populations and easily accessible polling stations.

That means that the vote would almost be entirely decided by large cities such as new York and LA, so the smaller more rural districts would definitely feel that their votes didn't count

It's obviously not a perfect system since it was designed for several candidates not two but I think the popular vote isn't the right solution.

and this is precisely why our forefathers back in 1776 made darn sure that just one tiny land mass area could NOT make a final decision for those of use who live in the hinterlands where our next door neighbor is about 6 miles away.

 

[Nuckchooking]

Again.. I'm British, and our system is pretty much, definitely, absolutely not even close to perfect.... And you shouldn't even try to change your system now, i'm only talking about the next election (whenever that may be, presumably 2020)

But if there are more people in New York and LA, then why should their vote count for less than someone in a more rural district. I agree that there is a need to balance out the interests of all the states, but isn't this what the senate and congress is for?

(If I'm right let me know, if i'm completely wrong please tell me why, as its the only way i'll know)

My main point is the system is actually intuitive with more than two candidates running as you get electoral votes spread around.

 

[Nuckchooking]

Again.. I'm British, and our system is pretty much, definitely, absolutely not even close to perfect.... And you shouldn't even try to change your system now, i'm only talking about the next election (whenever that may be, presumably 2020)

But if there are more people in New York and LA, then why should their vote count for less than someone in a more rural district. I agree that there is a need to balance out the interests of all the states, but isn't this what the senate and congress is for?

(If I'm right let me know, if i'm completely wrong please tell me why, as its the only way i'll know)

I'm also Canadian I'm just basing my opinion on what I've learned from our electoral system in comparison to the U.S.

 

[svim]

The only way to have a true democracy is to have a one person-one vote election process. America's Electoral College dilutes and distorts any individual citizen's vote so America has pretty much locked itself into being a representative republic instead. With our Electoral College, its delegates are NOT in any way determined by public input. Different states have widely varying ways of choosing their delegates, again none of them involve the general public. Delegates can 'volunteer' themselves through self-promotional or financial ways, or they might get selected by committee, or by each state's local D or R party. Then during any presidential election it's actually those delegates, a minuscule percentage of eligible voters, who then determine the winner. As voters, we're thoroughly brain-washed about how vitally important it is to go vote but then when we sit down and watch the results pour in, the focus is on those EC delegates. The popular vote count is all theater, no substance. When the popular count and delegate count correspond, there's little discussion, when they differ then we get all upset. Like it or not we're pretty much stuck with the EC (apparently throughout our short history there are 700 and counting failed attempts to kill it):
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...lectoral-college-but-its-not-going-away-soon/

Back in our earliest days, the EC was a necessary part of the election process. Most of the population was rural and polling sites were limited, most people simply didn't have the means to actually go and vote. Add in the fact that most of us were also either fully or functionally illiterate and it just wasn't practical for a general election involving every citizen. But jump forward a few hundred years and now it's almost trivially easy for everyone to get counted. Even taking into account we still have an undeniable digital divide, we now have the technology where even a single, off-the-shelf PC can tally up all the votes for each and every voter. (Well that's very loosely hypothetical of course, as our culture advocating free speech also enables idiots and zealots to screw up anything like online voting.)

So we're stuck with a representative government instead of a true democratic one. On paper it's still an acceptable way to run a country, unfortunately human nature has corrupted the process so it's not working too well right now. We have instituted gerrymandering, caucuses, the Electoral College, and race-based voter suppression all layered in between a very broken campaign financing debacle so when the rest of us dutifully fall in line at our polling places it's basically just entertainment, electing the President is determined by just a handful of people. When the sh*t hits the fan, those EC delegates don't take any responsibility or get blamed for their actions, instead the problem gets directed at the public for choosing poorly.

 

[AZgl1500]

The only way to have a true democracy is to have a one person-one vote election process. America's Electoral College dilutes and distorts any individual citizen's vote so America has pretty much locked itself into being a representative republic instead. .

Our National Anthem has the words "For the Republic which we stand"....

we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic and that is why we have been able to recover from some bad misques. And this current POTUS winner, will IMO, turn things around for us.

Democracies end up with rulers that have been in control for decades, 3, 4 or more.... and those are very ruinous....
Venezuela is one example.... folks there can't find enough food to fill their belly, nor can the average citizen afford to buy fuel for their car, assuming they even own a car.

Think I am wrong? Look at this Bloomberg report:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...st-economic-performers-flirting-with-disaster

 

[svim]

Sure, there's the conventional media's take on Venezuela but there's also reality. The rest of world often sees U.S. intervention as a big problem:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/an...t-to-Overthrow-Hugo-Chavez-20151118-0014.html
http://www.mintpressnews.com/details-on-an-alleged-us-backed-coup-in-venezuela-come-to-light/202549/

Until the U.S. started targeting him, Chavez was a Big Oil guy not unlike Bush. But while Bush only governed to suit his conservative base, Chavez actually wanted to make all of Venezuela better by heavily investing oil profits into things like public infrastructure (roads, community centers, etc.), a more stable power grid, more and better public schools, and affordable, available health care. Sure he was a bit of a bully and pushed his own agendas over the opposition, but he did love his country. But after the dust settled, while we did politically neuter Chavez by doing so the Venezuelan people were collateral damage. Their quality of life had a brighter future, until we got involved.

As for Trump, we as a nation just barely survived the Bush administration. All indicators point to Trump and the people he's now pulling into his inner circle as being more fervent zealots than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice. Even the rest of the world took a pretty nasty hit when we almost went bankrupt. Conservatism and their resulting austerity policies that have become so popular are only short term fixes that simply gloss over long term issues. It's easy to slap a patch on top of a problem but right now we're just pushing off our responsibilities onto future generations.

 

[zuben el genub]

Get religion, race and a few other things out of the Red Zone.

Do we need people even suggesting crap like this?
https://politics.slashdot.org/story...m_campaign=Feed:+Slashdot/slashdot+(Slashdot)

If the Tech CEO is Asian and he also started/owns the company - he can move the whole company elsewhere to all of our detriment.

If he is Asian-American and also started the company, then he has all the rights of "white" people. We are NOT going back to internment camps.

 

[Double44]

California had a whopping 55 electoral votes up for grabs, more than any other state in the union, and that state usually goes blue. If you win California, you've got a huge headstart, which I find pretty unfair. California should be split, not from the USA (or secession as some there have protested), but from themselves. The celebrity culture and rich people like it blue. All their votes have been bought. A lot of unheard people in that state, it's unfortunate.

Going by a national popular vote would be corrupt, popular voting already occurs at the state level, that's the way it should stay. I find it simply astounding just how many people have suddenly "woken up" to the idea that the electoral college is how our voting system operates.. if I had to guess, it's all thanks to the internet, and the corrupt mainstream media... of course.

 

[dontpanicbobby]

That's the Pledge of Allegiance. @AZgl1500

 

[notacoach]

I'm not understanding the logic that rural areas would be LESS represented by a popular vote. Surely just the opposite?

 

[dontpanicbobby]

Less voters in rural areas. More in cities. She lost.