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

[Tijuana]

There was a civil war you know. The far right lost.

The civil war was won by the first prominent Republican. I'm not sure where you get the right lost.

[Daerio]

I somewhat understand the intent of the electoral college but in its current form it does not actually perform its duty which would be to select the president right now it is more or less a rubber stamp for the votes in various states. It seems like the current system is disenfranchising large numbers of voters.

The way the senate is setup is already protection for smaller states so that their needs are represented. I am not sure we also need to have their votes count for 10-100s of times more than those in more populous states.

I'm not sure California needs to be so large, doesn't it need to be 3 or 4 states instead of 1? It seems like the current system is disenfranchising large numbers of voters.

[Gestopft]

But if by some miracle the way the President was voted in was changed to by popular vote , I can see many coming forward to want each state to have equal member representation in Congress based on the population strict percentage of voters because of the same arguments of why the President should be voted in by popular vote.

If the districts aren't gerrymandered to one particular party's advantage, you would expect the representation to naturally be fairly similar.

More to the point, if one party can't get a majority of the vote, maybe they should work on their policies and their messaging. I mean, honestly, would nearly as many Republicans would still be defending the electoral college if the tables were turned. There's an easy way to shut down the conversation: go win votes like a political party is supposed to do.

I happen to like proportional representation because it greatly increases the viability of multiple parties- and it also makes any particular party getting a true majority harder.

[Deleted]

The civil war was won by the first prominent Republican. I'm not sure where you get the right lost.

I very much doubt you'd fine many people equating that Republican party with the far right.

[Stormdash]

There was a civil war you know. The far right lost.

That you think these are analogous circumstances (re: cassus belli) tells me a lot that's just... disappointing. Not even technically a civil war, since it was fought between political sovereignties with only one side interested in having political control over the other, leaving that aside, not even so much as a single one of the underlying political issues is the same. I chose the Rwandan genocide for a reason, because the kind of leftist 'uprising' you'd need to pull off would be more fueled by mobs trying to kill their political enemies door to door with machetes. The 2nd Amendment would probably prove quite pertinent as the side who hates it would try to murder the side who loves it with knives

[Venant]

There was a civil war you know. The far right lost.

We had one in europe too. The far right lost there also.

If you can't persuade a fascist, equate his head with the pavement.

So when you talk about Europeans ending slavery, are you talking about how the Brittish Empire ended the largest proponent of slavery in history, and by that I mean the Muslim slave trade.

[Ghostpanther]

The civil war was won by the first prominent Republican. I'm not sure where you get the right lost.

lol! Bravo! They also seem to forget that more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights law.

[Tijuana]

I very much doubt you'd fine many people equating that Republican party with the far right.

Are you attempting to put racism on the political spectrum, and assigning it to the right? Come on man...

[Stormdash]

The civil war was won by the first prominent Republican. I'm not sure where you get the right lost.

He "got it" from a lifetime of being told that everything that he finds inimical and wrong and mean is what "right wing" means.

[Gestopft]

You can't. The entire debate is futile, and everyone posting here knows it.

That would explain the "If" in the thread title :P

[Deleted]

More to the point, if one party can't get a majority of the vote, maybe they should work on their policies and their messaging.

Yeah like Trump. MY MESSAGE IS THE BEST, EVERYONE SAYS ITS THE BEST, EVERYONE. I'M THE BEST AT TALKING, THE BEST TALKER, THE BEST AT TALKING. IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY TALKING YOUR STUPID.

Dems really need someone with those silky rhetorical skills.

[zenkai]

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, this is a stupid topic.

[Ghostpanther]

If the districts aren't gerrymandered to one particular party's advantage, you would expect the representation to naturally be fairly similar.

More to the point, if one party can't get a majority of the vote, maybe they should work on their policies and their messaging. I mean, honestly, would nearly as many Republicans would still be defending the electoral college if the tables were turned. There's an easy way to shut down the conversation: go win votes like a political party is supposed to do.

I happen to like proportional representation because it greatly increases the viability of multiple parties- and it also makes any particular party getting a true majority harder.

Both parties need to work with the concerns of both sides for unity. Having lost the popular vote, the Republicans need to understand that. But at the same time, they do represent those who voted for them and the principles they stand for. The Democrats have to understand to win they cannot just focus on the desires of a lot of people within the most populous States, but all the concerns within each State.

[Tijuana]

Both parties need to work with the concerns of both sides for unity. Having lost the popular vote, the Republicans need to understand that. But at the same time, they do represent those who voted for them and the principles they stand for. The Democrats have to understand to win they cannot just focus on the desires of a lot of people within the most populous States, but all the concerns within each State.

I agree but I would add one thing. The Democrats need to stop attacking the majority, if they want the votes of the majority. Being a champion of the disadvantaged is noble; attacking people who had nothing to do with them being disadvantaged is not, and it's poor math for winning.

[Deleted]

Are you attempting to put racism on the political spectrum, and assigning it to the right? Come on man...

Yes. You voted for a man who repeatedly came out with dog-whistle messages and ugly racial slurs and had little else in way of substantive or even recognizeable policy. I can't think of a more overtly racist politician in democratic political history. That's the consensus opinion among 95% of the planet even among other conservative politicians and/or nations generally sympathetic to the US whom mostly disassociated themselves from him. Trump's rhetoric is almost identical to every piece of far right propaganda I've read in the last 30 years.

[Ghostpanther]

I agree but I would add one thing. The Democrats need to stop attacking the majority, if they want the votes of the majority. Being a champion of the disadvantaged is noble; attacking people who had nothing to do with them being disadvantaged is not, and it's poor math for winning.

Well put. I agree.

[Scathbais]

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

It is a bit of apples to oranges comparison here. Candidates strategize and campaign to win electoral votes instead of popular votes. This means Hillary didn't spend a lot of time in red states and the Donald ignored California and New York.

As a result Republican turnout in California is below normal, because their votes just don't count. The same is probably true of Texas (although that state has heavy concentrations of democrats in densely populated urban areas) so probably not the best example.

If popular vote mattered, then both candidates would have to change their ground game to reach out to all voters, not just concentrate on the swing states.

[Tijuana]

Yes. You voted for a man who repeatedly came out with dog-whistle messages and ugly racial slurs and had little else in way of substantive or even recognizeable policy. I can't think of a more overtly racist politician in democratic political history. That's the consensus opinion among 95% of the planet even among other conservative politicians and/or nations generally sympathetic to the US whom mostly disassociated themselves from him. Trump's rhetoric is almost identical to every piece of far right propaganda I've read in the last 30 years.

I never heard Steve Rogers do any of that. Did you just assume my voting?

Trump said a lot of insensitive things to various groups. Few would deny that. However, reasonable people understand that words have meanings, and that insensitive does not mean the same thing as racist, intolerant, or prejudiced. If your argument is that Trump isn't PC, well, it's not exactly a new idea.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes. You voted for a man who repeatedly came out with dog-whistle messages and ugly racial slurs and had little else in way of substantive or even recognizeable policy. I can't think of a more overtly racist politician in democratic political history. That's the consensus opinion among 95% of the planet even among other conservative politicians and/or nations generally sympathetic to the US whom mostly disassociated themselves from him. Trump's rhetoric is almost identical to every piece of far right propaganda I've read in the last 30 years.

You do know this is purely opinion? I happen to agree with his policies. While at the same time, not liking his tone or approach to some subjects. But his policies is the very reason I voted for him.

[Hiricine]

The idea that politics is this static game where if you changed the rules it would be played the same is silly. The policies of both sides would change in order to amass the most votes, and Ohio/Florida/Nevada wouldnt come up every election night.

I'm not sure California needs to be so large, doesn't it need to be 3 or 4 states instead of 1? It seems like the current system is disenfranchising large numbers of voters.

This is actually a great question and there have been many proposals. The concern is intra-state, California is concerned that if it split many of the higher income people would gravitate upstate in order to find a low-tax environment. and you really couldn't do much to stop them. Also keep in mind, the current people in charge (the heads of the Cali legislature, the governor of Cali) quite like being in charge of a relatively larger state, so you won't get them to support it generally.