If electoral college was ended, could the republicans EVER win another election?

[Ghostpanther]

How would it weaken state rights? the states are represented in the senate and the house of representative, deciding elections does not grant them any special rights.

It is the President who can sign or veto bills and is the one who appoints Supreme Court justices to serve, which all of those can have a large impact on every citizen.

[Draco-Onis]

While it is true that eliminating the EC would still leave some state rights behind, the argument that they are unaffected is a little strange to me. This nation is a republic, and there is nothing immoral about that; quite the contrary. Mob rule is not always a better way to handle things.

Again please explain what rights would those states lose if the EC went away? also mob rule is the way practically every other democracy does it. The electoral college is uniquely American.

[ati87]

Just lol. You completely ignore all the science I've given you because you don't like what it says, then you go on and call me deluded. Your "policy" doesn't work. How is it working in south america or africa?

You mean the countries where ''superiour'' people decided to invade and bomb for centuries because of money?

Really again you aren't arguing policy but voodoo science, this is what weak people do.

I'm done, it's stupid of me to argue with right wingers that are angry because of either low self esteem or because they fail in everyday life and then blame their troubles on others.

[Kalcheus]

It's been so long since the Republicans have won the popular vote ... oh wait, no it isn't, they won in 2004 with the popular vote. This is a pretty dumb question.

[Draco-Onis]

It is the President who can sign or veto bills and is the one who appoints Supreme Court justices to serve, which all of those can have a large impact on every citizen.

How does that affect the rights of states that decide the election? they have the same representation as all the other in the house and the senate. I am still awaiting a concrete answer how taking away the electoral college negatively affects them in terms of having rights or a voice.

[Osmeric]

Since the electoral college isn't going away (that would require a constitutional amendment), it's a moot point.

Worry more about the GOP gaining enough control in enough states to be able to ram through their own constitutional amendments.

[Captain N]

It's been so long since the Republicans have won the popular vote ... oh wait, no it isn't, they won in 2004 with the popular vote. This is a pretty dumb question.

We were also in the middle of a war in 2004 and the US has a history of not changing Presidents during war-time.

But that President in 2004 was the same guy who lost the Popular Vote in 2000.

Funny how that works out...twice in sixteen years we have Republicans lose the Popular Vote and win the Presidency.

Prior to that the last time the EC and PV had different results was in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison beat Grover Cleveland.

[Deleted]

Sociability isn't required for intelligence. IQ tests measure logical processes and pattern recognition, mostly. These are pretty fundamental items for understanding the world. But you don't necessarily need them for understanding people, because people are often illogical and frequently break from patterns.

I would agree that an inclination towards sociability is not required for intelligence, but an inability for sociability shows a machine-like lack of mental flexibility. Machines can be programmed to solve logical and pattern recognition problems, but they are not intelligent (yet).

[ati87]

Again please explain what rights would those states lose if the EC went away? also mob rule is the way practically every other democracy does it. The electoral college is uniquely American.

The biggest thing the EC prevents it's the absolute majority rule.

A country's big as the US can not function properly if the majority tries to fuck over the minority.

if tomorrow the majority of the US decided that the native Americans had no right to their historical lands most people wouldn't think that's right now would it.

the EC has it's merits but it should be more equally distrusted in terms of how it works instead of focussing so much on the smalls tates.

So first make the value of votes more equal and stop with the winner take all rule. It's stupid how 1 person can get all the EC if he just wins the state by 1%.

[Obelisk Kai]

The problem is that you want a pure democracy when it would go your way and not so much when it doesn't. California voted for a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage and it won by a pretty good margin but it was overturned but you have no problem with that. You say it was unconstitutional. Well, I hate to break it to you but the EC is in the Constitution so quit being such a crybaby about it.

That is a pretty silly comparison. Protecting civil rights is exactly the defense against the tyranny of the majority that any worthwhile democracy should embrace. This is why the tyranny of the majority with equal marriage was struck down. You are comparing apples to oranges.

We are discussing voting system, determining who rules. Here, the principle that should be followed is one person, one vote, equally. The system in use in the United States does not follow that principle, having been manipulated so that some voters wield vastly greater influence than others with their vote. That is a fundamental unfairness you probably support because it allows your side to win without compromise.

This is not a healthy system.

[Draco-Onis]

The biggest thing the EC prevents it's the absolute majority rule.

A country's big as the US can not function properly if the majority tries to fuck over the minority.

if tomorrow the majority of the US decided that the native Americans had no right to their historical lands most people wouldn't think that's right now would it.

the EC has it's merits but it should be more equally distrusted in terms of how it works instead of focussing so much on the smalls tates.

So first make the value of votes more equal and stop with the winner take all rule. It's stupid how 1 person can get all the EC if he just wins the state by 1%.

That's why we have a court system, checks and balances etc, the swing states do not dictate the national agenda. The notion that presidential elections would somehow make absolute majority rule is illogical because absolute minority rule in the current system does not exist.

[Ghostpanther]

How does that affect the rights of states that decide the election? they have the same representation as all the other in the house and the senate. I am still awaiting a concrete answer how taking away the electoral college negatively affects them in terms of having rights or a voice.

I just explained why it does. You have decided it is not a good answer. That is ok. It is still going to stay the way it is now in the foreseeable future. And in my opinion for good reasons. You are correct the states would not lose all of their representation. But the people with in those states could on a national level. This is why the Founding Fathers designed it like it is. When they speak of " We the people " they understood the negative impact a popular vote could have on each individual with in each state. They felt, as i do, it is a fairer way for each state to have more say on the ways things are conducted in the nation.

[Tijuana]

Again please explain what rights would those states lose if the EC went away? also mob rule is the way practically every other democracy does it. The electoral college is uniquely American.

Wait, are you arguing for or against the EC? This seems like a positive to me, that it is uniquely American.

If you don't understand how the power of the states is increased by the EC, you just won't be fun to discuss it with anyway, sorry. This is a very simple concept that we have discussed endlessly since the election in other threads.

[Ghostpanther]

Since the electoral college isn't going away (that would require a constitutional amendment), it's a moot point.

Worry more about the GOP gaining enough control in enough states to be able to ram through their own constitutional amendments.

Good points. Which is why the Democratic party needs to start looking at the concerns in all 50 states and not just the ones with the most votes.

[Draco-Onis]

I just explained why it does. You have decided it is not a good answer. That is ok. It is still going to stay the way it is now in the foreseeable future. And in my opinion for good reasons. You are correct the states would not lose all of their representation. But the people with in those states could on a national level. This is why the Founding Fathers designed it like it is. When they speak of " We the people " they understood the negative impact a popular vote could have on each individual with in each state. They felt, as i do, it is a fairer way for each state to have more say on the ways things are conducted in the nation.

The founding founders also felt that women shouldn't vote and that people of color didn't count we also changed that because times do change. There is no logical reason for the electoral college to remain.

[Tijuana]

Good points. Which is why the Democratic party needs to start looking at the concerns in all 50 states and not just the ones with the most votes.

Yeah, currently the Democratic party is merely a regional party. If they change nothing, that will quickly cement their future that way. It would appear they intend to change nothing, based on their behavior post-election.

- - - Updated - - -

The founding founders also felt that women shouldn't vote and that people of color didn't count we also changed that because times do change. There is no logical reason for the electoral college to remain.

Many logical reasons have been given. You just disagree with them all. Your opinion of which way is best, does not trump whether something is logical or not.

[Draco-Onis]

Wait, are you arguing for or against the EC? This seems like a positive to me, that it is uniquely American.

If you don't understand how the power of the states is increased by the EC, you just won't be fun to discuss it with anyway, sorry. This is a very simple concept that we have discussed endlessly since the election in other threads.

But you have no examples or proof that those states get any special rights / powers by the the electoral college. If it's so easy to understand then please cite examples were swing states dictated the agenda or got special rights because of the electoral college.

There are a lot of things that were positively american that we have changed over the years, being uniquely american is not a good enough reason.

[Aggrophobic]

I honestly feel that if the electoral college were abolished the way all these liberals want it to be that the republicans would literally never win another election for the rest of all history and time.

Kinda need the electoral college so republicans can get turns with the whitehouse honestly?

Liberal democrat voters will always win the popular vote as far as I'm concerned

Of course they could win, why not?
Trump "could never win", yet he did.

Getting more people out to vote would be needed but thats really only a good thing.
It's ridiculous how few people actually vote in the US today.

[Draco-Onis]

Many logical reasons have been given. You just disagree with them all. Your opinion of which way is best, does not trump whether something is logical or not.

Your logical reason so far has been, well it's because I say so there have been no facts or examples in them.

[mittacc]

Google page rank has nothing to do with whether something is credible. It is an automatic system that judges how well referenced a particular page is from other pages on the web. As for the study linked there, it has been criticized for using data from different years for different countries, using different tests, for using small and/or unrepresentative samples, and perhaps most worrying, for estimating their results for 79 countries based on neighbouring countries.

- - - Updated - - -



Why would he be kidding? The only thing an IQ test can reliably tell you is how good someone is at doing IQ tests. They test specific things which may have absolutely nothing to do with the normal thought processes of the majority of people in everyday life. There are lots of autistic people incapable of functioning in society who would score highly on them.

He sajd t¨hat a test that measures your "intelligence quota" has nothing to do with intelligence. It does not test knowledge.

Does it test all forms of intelligence? Of course not.