Jump to content
NanuqoftheNorth

Why The Electoral College Ruins Democracy

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Beer 1

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. 

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
  • Pie 1

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.

 

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth

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
4 hours ago, darrybear said:

 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 

New York and California wouldn't win the whole election, the PEOPLE would.

take states entirely out of the equation. the states shouldn't be voting for anything. the people should.

Edited by rodeo
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




16 hours ago, rodeo said:

you could just rephrase this and say "the last thing we need is the will of the American people to determine the fate of America."

you're basically in no uncertain terms admitting that your chosen ideology is a small minority that couldn't win without unethical manipulation of vote weights.

I voted Hillary and still support the electoral college. It allows for elections in individual states which is the intent of the constitution.

each state has a right to be heard, not just the overpopulated ones.

its more unethical to drown out everyone else or bend rational thinking to one side or another when it has nothing to do with logic.

furthermore,  just like I believe the constitution should change and make people have to earn their citizenship, the electoral college isn't going anywhere.

someday a candidate on another side will be heard and the electoral college will be championed by the left and demonized on the right.

such is the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, firefox1234 said:

The electoral college is a pretty fair system at the moment....

In what way is it fair for the President to be the person who lost the vote?

That's absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rodeo said:

In what way is it fair for the President to be the person who lost the vote?

That's absurd.

As mentioned previously it gives low populated states a voice in elections, and in the end of the day a States electoral count is determined by population so it’s not like they get a significant advantage. The ones with the most electorals are still in costal high populated states. The electoral issue is just a cover for the real issue which is Gerrymandering in my opinion.

Share this post


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

New York and California wouldn't win the whole election, the PEOPLE would.

take states entirely out of the equation. the states shouldn't be voting for anything. the people should.

This is true for the Presidential election sure. 

It's filtered down even farther in California though. The Dems have passed legislation that for instance the State Senator race only the top 2 vote getters in the Primary are on the final ballot. So your choice for State Senator in Cali on election day was Democrat 1 or Democrat 2. You didn't even have a Repub or Indi choice.

senate.jpg

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
      18,948
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Lorimark
    Joined
  • Topics

×