Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NanuqoftheNorth

Why The Electoral College Ruins Democracy

Recommended Posts



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.

 

 

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.        

 

 

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.

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.

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

The US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. If the election was held based solely on individual votes, 38 states would have virtually zero say in the country. At that point, what is their incentive to stay part of the US? 

Is it a perfect system? No. But it is a way for parts of this country that are essential to it's survival to at least feel like they are being heard. It keeps the nation from being cut in half which would cripple the country as a whole. Honestly, if we didn't have that system, I think the country would fall apart in less than 50 years. 

On a side note, I believe there's a reason the government gives farmers so many subsidies, but that's a whole different conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

If the election was held based solely on individual votes, 38 states would have virtually zero say in the country.

Voters would have a significantly increased say in the future of their country with a one person, one vote approach.  

Every voter in every state would have an equal voice in the outcome of a Presidential election.

Every presidential hopeful would have to campaign for every vote, rather than primarily focusing on a few swing states as they have for decades. 

For instance, there are more republican voters in California than just about any other state in the union.

Tens of millions of voters (like republicans in California or Dems in Texas) are for all intents and purposes irrelevant.  Most states (like California and Texas) are predictably red or blue, elections are determined by a handful of states rather than the nation at large.  The USA has one of the lowest rates of voter participation of any nation when it comes to selecting its leader.  That is in large part to an electoral system that promotes voter apathy.

Want a true representative government?  Then your system of selecting those representatives needs to accurately reflect the will of the people.  Putting people in office that represent the minority view rather than the majority view is the exact opposite of representative government. 

Every other elected office in this nation is determined by popular vote and the POTUS should be no different.  To argue that it is better that those in the minority should hold sway over the majority turns the whole purpose of having elections on its head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want it more realistic, make each congressional district win an electoral vote.  Pres candidate wins NC 1st district that's one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, g5jamz said:

Want it more realistic, make each congressional district win an electoral vote.  Pres candidate wins NC 1st district that's one.  

Congressional districts are gerrymandered all to hell and are a poor method of determining the will of the voter.

Fix the gerrymandering issue and you might be onto something.

Till then, it is trading one badly flawed approach for another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rodeo said:

1 person = 1 vote is the only system consistent with American values. if you think your vote should count more than someone else's then you are garbage.

 Honestly if it were that way all you would have to do is win New York and California and you almost won the whole election   Innoway this allow small states to be heard one vote does equal one vote it's just that that is with in your state I don't understand how people don't get this how could you honestly takes US government in high school and not learn this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

 

Voters would have a significantly increased say in the future of their country with a one person, one vote approach.  

Every voter in every state would have an equal voice in the outcome of a Presidential election.

Every presidential hopeful would have to campaign for every vote, rather than primarily focusing on a few swing states as they have for decades. 

For instance, there are more republican voters in California than just about any other state in the union.

Tens of millions of voters (like republicans in California or Dems in Texas) are for all intents and purposes irrelevant.  Most states (like California and Texas) are predictably red or blue, elections are determined by a handful of states rather than the nation at large.  The USA has one of the lowest rates of voter participation of any nation when it comes to selecting its leader.  That is in large part to an electoral system that promotes voter apathy.

Want a true representative government?  Then your system of selecting those representatives needs to accurately reflect the will of the people.  Putting people in office that represent the minority view rather than the majority view is the exact opposite of representative government. 

Every other elected office in this nation is determined by popular vote and the POTUS should be no different.  To argue that it is better that those in the minority should hold sway over the majority turns the whole purpose of having elections on its head. 

 smh you still don't get that's your vote does count is just within your state every individual vote is counted it's just going to wards your state honey if we didn't do it that way those smaller states would not get a say even if it was all individual that would not benefit more people you would think that but it doesn't  in fact I would even go as far to say that it would disenfranchise more voters what's the point of voting if one segment of the population gets to determine the whole thing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,373
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Imbacksucker
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      141,093
    • Total Posts
      4,496,200
×