Jump to content
NanuqoftheNorth

Why The Electoral College Ruins Democracy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vampire the buffet slayer said:

People In a state 800 miles away who do nothing but suck the federal tit should not dictate how the money of grain farmers who work 15hrs  a day are regulated and taxed. 

once again United STATES of America.  States first.  

but the grain farmer sucking at the federal tit (farming industry is subsidized to ridiculous degrees) should dictate how people in a city 800 miles away are regulated and taxes?

why should their vote count more?

how about nobody decides anything for people 800 miles away, and they only count for their 1 vote.

  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


holy poo at calling the peaceful majority will of the people "mob rule."

the right wing has lost its fuging mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vampire the buffet slayer said:

Its the United STATES of America. 

Not the the United States of California and New York of America. 

The last thing we need is the political arm of New York and California determining the fate of middle America.  

You guys are so wrapped up in we should all be socialist,  tell me one socialist country that has a population over 100 Million that has it better than us?

Go ahead. 

I'll wait. 

 

 

A vote is a vote.  Doesn’t matter if 4 people live here and 1 there. 

The actual purpose of the electoral college was if uneducated and blind fools voted for someone like Trump.....Trump wouldn’t get the electoral votes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the United States, not the United State.  We are a representative republic, and this debate has occurred no less than a half a dozen times and it's just as ignorant now as it was the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.

Surprise!  The electoral college is a remnant of our slave owning past.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-electoral-college/2012/11/02/2d45c526-1f85-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_story.html

Quote

Because of the Electoral College, for the second time in 16 years, the person with the most votes will not become president. is likely that Hillary Clinton will have a margin of more than 2,000,000 votes. This will make her the most popular presidential candidate to ever lose a presidential election. She follows in the footsteps of Al Gore, Grover Cleveland, Samuel Tilden, Andrew Jackson, and probably John Adams.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/the-electoral-college-was-explicitly-designed-to-protect-slavery/

Quote

 

Hugh Williamson of North Carolina made this point directly, bluntly noting that the South could not support popular election because the people would “vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed. This will not be Virginia. However. Her slaves will have no suffrage.” This was a critical observation. If the president were directly elected by the people, then southerners, especially Virginians, might not get elected. Virginia had the largest population of any state, but about 40% of its people were slaves and none of them could vote. The same of course would be true for the rest of the South.

Somewhat later James Madison, conceded that “the people at large” were “the fittest” to choose the president. But “one difficulty … of a serious nature” made election by the people impossible. Madison noted that the “right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.” In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the Electoral College.

 

 

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




The video more-so infers a United Districts of America from an election standpoint.  Each electoral vote is up for grabs, not syphoned into a winner take all for the state they're in.  I see faults and also agree there are issues with just abolishing it and don't support that.  

At the same time, the disproportionate situation is apparent, and it's not about mob rule.   I don't want 5 states deciding the election either.  Those are the two cruxes of each side but there is so much room to work with here without being stubborn.  

Flashback--Many people were not given the right to vote initially and it was at a time when NYC was smaller than modern day Boone.  Times were different and we need to admit policy can age in the world.  It's happened in every culture since Ancient Greece and likely before.  Hamilton however was smart as balls and I agree about many of his founding principles behind why the EC was framed the way it was.  He opposed pure mob rule but still wanted the sense of majority having say, just through the appropriate representative filtering.  

State populations will always be fluid, it's the way things go.  Also, politicians will be politicians and use the system to their advantage.  I don't care how revered and respected we view what the founders did, a voting system lasting for 200 years in the world enduring so many advances in society and technology is astounding, though we've added people to the mix through reform and it is an entirely different planet.  I mean, we went from horse and buggy to the moon in ~70 years so it's not the end of the world to agree on mindful changes.  So..

TL;DR:

I think a ground level idea that remains state empowered is to just let them decide if they want to divvy up their votes according to electoral district vote.  Again, states get the final say on winner-take-all v. district allocation.  If you don't like it, well move to another state, the state made up their mind.  State rights.  

Let this option sit there, even if just one states decides for it, that's all that it takes to start a tide.  Would a big blue with heavy red patches like CA risk this?  Or vice versa with Texas?  It plays to both sides.  

Also, it subtly removes power from the parties.  There are districts throughout the country that a Green or Libertarian could actually take hold of if they were in a state with heavy independent influence.  If there's another tightly contested primary and a candidate sees a handful of states he did well in are allocation-based, he'll have an incentive to go independent.  It could give more weight to their presence and then primaries losers would have incentive to become an independent candidate.  Imagine if Ohio, some in the northwest and north east did this..then Bernie v. Clinton v. Trump v. Kasich happened.  Honestly, I don't even know who would come out on top.  

The interesting thing is that this could actually be a passable idea given it's a non-incentivized option.  

I'll give credit to David Brin for some of these thoughts but thought to lay it out for whatever reason.  I don't even know if I'm all for it, but it's an idea.  

Cheers.        

 

 

  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we should get Zod to let us vote on if people should be allowed to be banned in the Tinderbox. 

Everyone votes. 

Some votes will count more than others do though.  Because we want it to be fair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course a bridge to a straight vote might be to prorate all electoral college votes based on percentages in each state like some already do. 

So for instance California would have been 38 Hillary, 17 Trump.

  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Kevin Greene said:

Of course a bridge to a straight vote might be to prorate all electoral college votes based on percentages in each state like some already do. 

So for instance California would have been 38 Hillary, 17 Trump.

this only works if you give electors at the exact same rate in every state. 1 elector for 100k people for example. none of this 1 elector for 500k in one state and 1 elector for 50k in another state.

Edited by rodeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rodeo said:

this only works if you give electors at the exact same rate ever each state. 1 elector for 100k people for example. none of this 1 elector for 500k in one state and 1 elector for 50k in another state.

Well I said it was a bridge......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      18,797
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    NO - CAM
    Joined
  • Topics

×