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

[Mayhem]

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.

Logical reasons given sofar:
"The smaller states would be underrepresented"
followup question:
"How so?"
"Because they wouldn´t be equally represented!"

That´s not logical at all, that´s just avoiding to answer the question to an argument you came up with.

- - - Updated - - -

And they also designed it so the Supreme Court is the ones who decide the interpretation of the Constitution and not a popular vote. Several injustices have been corrected in the past because of decisions the Court has made. And shall I mention again who gets to appoint justices to serve on that court? Yes, Congress has to approve those appointments, which is why we have many checks and balances with in our political system. Which is good.

How is that related to the EC? What has the supreme court to do with how the president is elected?

[Draco-Onis]

Exactly. It was actually the Democratic party in the far South that supported slavery.

But you know, people like advanta can just come on the internet and say whatever they want these days, so yeah, let's just say those dirty, racist Republicans lost the Civil War.

democrats were republicans, republicans were democrats there was even a democratic republican party none of which has anything to do with the parties today. Please go read a history book, it is both sad and disturbing that people perpetuate this myth.

[Mayhem]

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.

What? Why? Those things aren´t comparable just because you say so.

[Citizen T]

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.

No we're discussing the difference between direct democracy and a representative republic which is what we are. Direct democracy is a horrible system for just such reason as you pointed out with the protection of civil rights and such. The US is a representative republic of which members are the states not the individual citizens. The EC protects the rights of each of those states to prevent the more populous from becoming tyrannical to the smaller much like a pure democracy could easily do the same to individual rights.

[Mayhem]

Not really as you say or I would not have posted any input into this thread. My point is when it comes to making sense, there is none for a situation which is not going change anyway. One can argue the values or merits of the system as it is or can be, but it is still pretty much a senseless argument. You are not going to be convinced it is a good system as is and I am not going to be convinced it is not.

Why do you think it is a good system? I mean you should be able to explain that.

[Renathras]

ISIS are cancer. Fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the US are cancer.

Christians and Muslims are mostly fairly moderate, dull people. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Wait so...

Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians in the US are chopping people's heads off, burning people alive in cages, using people as Human shields, selling women and children as sex slaves to each other, and taking over cities and towns all across the US and forcing people to convert to join them or else beheading/burning them alive (the men) or selling them as sex slaves (the women)?

This is happening all over the US?

...because I haven't seen any news about this happening all over the US.

Mayhaps you should reevaluate that equivalency? You can argue that Fundamentalist evangelical Christians are for a lot of things you dislike, but even the modern day KKK isn't equatable to ISIS (not to mention it has no political or military power). NOTHING in the US is equatable to ISIS, and it makes everyone who tries making that comparison look like an absolute idiot and raving, anti-Christian bigot whenever they try to make it.

The worst HONEST comparison you can make with any political/religious group in the US is a lose comparison to semi-fascist political movements. But trying to compare everything to ISIS is just abjectly stupid.

[Deleted]

The EC protects the rights of each of those states to prevent the more populous from becoming tyrannical to the smaller much like a pure democracy could easily do the same to individual rights.

Who protects those citizens disadvantaged by the electoral college? Why should city dwellers find their vote counts less than those people in rural communities? Why should a state be protected to the deteriment of individual citizens?

[Stormdash]

Who protects those citizens disadvantaged by the electoral college? Why should city dwellers find their vote counts less than those people in rural communities? Why should a state be protected to the deteriment of individual citizens?

They don't count less than anyone else's vote participating in the same election. Every city dweller and every rural dweller's votes count the same as everyone else in their state election. The only national election is the one in your imagination, there is no de jure thing at all.

[Faroth]

I've seen many protestations in the electoral college threads about how the slight majority of mostly coastal, urban voters shouldn't get to dictate terms to the more rural heartland states- and I get the concern. What I don't get, however, is by what logic the reverse should be true.

I imagine the idea is that the regions of the nation having equal say as opposed to Texas, California, New York, and Florida basically dictating terms. It's not really reverse being true if you're saying 46 states can outweight 4, even if those 4 states have the majority of the majority of the nation's population. At least that's what I've interpreted from the argument. Again, since different regions have different concerns, it's ensuring that all states are given attention.

There's a pretty good video from Prager U out there that details how California used to be safely Republican, Texas used to vote Democrat, and the swing/battleground states frequently change from election to election, thus ensuring that no region can be ignored by a political party for too long. Whereas with a straight popular vote, the above 4 states are essentially the only concern and the remaining 46 states are barely worth giving any attention to.

One example they give is that George W. Bush is generally considered having won because of Florida, but if he hadn't flipped a traditionally Democratic state, Florida wouldn't have been the end all-be all it was. Going by purely popular vote, that state wouldn't have changed anything because their population is comparably irrelvant.

[Citizen T]

Who protects those citizens disadvantaged by the electoral college? Why should city dwellers find their vote counts less than those people in rural communities? Why should a state be protected to the deteriment of individual citizens?

The same entity that protect those whose votes were entirely negated by the courts due to Constitutional concerns. The states are protected by the concerns of that very same Constitution. The US Constitution is primarily a compact between the States not the people. The Bill of Rights addresses the rights of the people and even points out that any power not provided to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States.

[Draco-Onis]

Wait so...

Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians in the US are chopping people's heads off, burning people alive in cages, using people as Human shields, selling women and children as sex slaves to each other, and taking over cities and towns all across the US and forcing people to convert to join them or else beheading/burning them alive (the men) or selling them as sex slaves (the women)?

This is happening all over the US?

...because I haven't seen any news about this happening all over the US.

huh? Muslims aren't doing this in the US unless you misspoke. If you want to see the work of Christian extremist look at South America, Africa and a number of third world countries where they have legislated their version of Sharia law. There is no excuse for extremism regardless of religion and we should all be against it. Although personally I think religion is terrible most Christians and Muslims I know are really good people who want nothing to do with what these groups do.

[Deleted]

.

Mayhaps you should reevaluate that equivalency? You can argue that Fundamentalist evangelical Christians are for a lot of things you dislike, but even the modern day KKK isn't equatable to ISIS (not to mention it has no political or military power). NOTHING in the US is equatable to ISIS, and it makes everyone who tries making that comparison look like an absolute idiot and raving, anti-Christian bigot whenever they try to make it.

Maybe you'd care to educate yourself on some of the atrocities your country has committed before speaking up on the basis of some ISIS torture porn you found on the internet.

[A dot Ham]

Possibly, though that would lead to higher voter turnout so who knows. I mean you look at states like California where Hillary won by about 4 million votes and you realize you have to wonder if there are enough votes in the other states to counteract that.

That's the thing that people don't seem to get. They hang on the turnouts for this election and don't take into account the fact that many people simply don't vote at all, because they feel like their vote does not matter BECAUSE of the electoral college.

If suddenly their vote did matter voter turnout may be higher.
According to: http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/
In 2012 there were:
~219 million eligible voters (legal age, citizens, non-convict, etc)
~146 million registered voters (ya I want to exercise my right to pick dumb or dumber)
~129 million that actually took the time to vote (ya I voted for dumb)

Point being, you would likely have more people actually register, and of those registered voters, you would most likely get a lot closer to full turnout.

Yes Hilary is continuing to win the popular vote. Abolishing the electoral college TODAY doesn't give Hilary a win for 2016, it means we hold a re-election. You don't get to change to rules to suit your needs and declare yourself the winner. I feel like I'm playing "Chutes and Ladders" with my toddler who declares that he can go up a slide when it benefits him, but daddy ALWAYS has to go down both slides AND ladders.

Why on earth we allow 18 year olds the right to vote, but not the right to drink is beyond me. If it requires another 3 years of maturing to be responsible enough to drink. You sure as hell don't have any business weighing in on decisions that effect other people until then either.

Although I guess to be fair, when voting ages were established most 18 year olds were DONE with college by then, rather than just starting.

[Zeek Daniels]

last i checked there is no electoral college in state elections and popular vote wins. And last i check there are more republican senators and congressmen than democrats. So the answer is yes they could win an election.

[Deleted]

The same entity that protect those whose votes were entirely negated by the courts due to Constitutional concerns. The states are protected by the concerns of that very same Constitution. The US Constitution is primarily a compact between the States not the people. The Bill of Rights addresses the rights of the people and even points out that any power not provided to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States.

Looks to me like that doesn't happen. I can't help but feel for example, that the socio-economic problems of the black community are not helped by the fact their communities tend to congregate in cities and their votes count for less.

[Venant]

Here is the thing.

The electoral college vote needs to be abolished.
Even if that means republicans or democrats would win all the time.

Why? Has anyone made a good argument for why this would be a better system?

[Renathras]

Who protects those citizens disadvantaged by the electoral college? Why should city dwellers find their vote counts less than those people in rural communities? Why should a state be protected to the deteriment of individual citizens?

The House of Representatives. Also, local/state governments.

The United States is somewhat unique in that it isn't a Democracy, nor is it a pure Representative Democracy, nor is it a purely Constitutional Republic. It is most properly classified as a Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic.

We are a Republic, meaning a compact between otherwise sovereign states. A coalition of nations. In this sense, each "nation"(state) has equal representation (the Senate).

We are also a Representative Democracy, meaning NOT a direct democracy (one person, one vote), but a Representation of the people through (local/district) Democratic elections. You have elections on the local level which are Democratic to determine the Representatives that you send to the government. Hence Representative Democracy.

We are also a Constitutionally bound state. The Representative Democratic and the Republican forms of our government are still bound to a compact, the Constitution, which they ARE allowed to change, but the process is difficult. This gives a baseline, MOSTLY unchanging "set in stone", "ironclad" set of rules that the government can be expected to be bound to that stipulates the basic ways the government runs and the fundamental rights of the people.

.

In this way, we are a Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic. (The Democrat party has just so concentrated their vote to a narrow geographic area that they've cut off from themselves access to large portions of the House. That is, they've become too concentrated and too narrow in scope and focus, largely due to the minimum 1 vote per state that is allotted in the House and the large populations that are leaving Democrat controlled areas.)

The US was formed, not as a government of lots of people, but as a government of lots of STATES.

This is why our government was set up the way it was. Hell, originally, the Senators were voted in by the state legislatures, not by the public!

- - - Updated - - -

huh? Muslims aren't doing this in the US unless you misspoke. If you want to see the work of Christian extremist look at South America, Africa and a number of third world countries where they have legislated their version of Sharia law. There is no excuse for extremism regardless of religion and we should all be against it. Although personally I think religion is terrible most Christians and Muslims I know are really good people who want nothing to do with what these groups do.

The person I quoted said that fundamentalist evangelical Christians (who ARE in the US as well as all over the world) were the same as ISIS. I was pointing out that was stupid.

ISIS is not in the US. Not all Muslims are part of ISIS. If you believe THAT, there's something very wrong with you. Fundamentalist evangelical Christians IN THE US were the topic of concern, since the poster was talking about fundamentalist evangelical Christians IN THE US. And I was saying that's a ridiculous comparison to make with ANY group in the US.

"X is just like ISIS!" is the new version of Goodwin's. Not that people have given up the "X is just like HITLER!!" yet, either.

...and it's just as ridiculous.

.

So no, I didn't "misspoke". I didn't mention MUSLIMS at all. I was merely refuting the false equivalence between ISIS - a very specific group of people with very extreme actions and the political and military power, at least locally, to get away with it - and...well...ANYone or ANYthing else. If you read my post again, you'll see I didn't use the word Muslim once.

[Adam Jensen]

Wow bigotry at its best. Why exactly do you equate Christians values with cancer?

Not Christians.

The religious right. There's a difference. I'm talking about the hateful groups like the AFA that want to stop gays from getting married, support conversion "therapy," creationist "theory" being taught in schools, the ones who act like because Christians have a majority, they have the right to trample on the other religious minorities.

That's not mainstream Christianity, and I never said it was.

[Citizen T]

Looks to me like that doesn't happen. I can't help but feel for example, that the socio-economic problems of the black community are not helped by the fact their communities tend to congregate in cities and their votes count for less.

So why should rural states be dictated because others decide to congregate in cities? As I said, the Constitution is a compact between States, not the people.

If the black communities want to improve their well being, my advice is for them to quit voting in the same people and policies that have kept them in perpetual poverty. The vast majority of black communities are in cities that have been controlled by the Democrat party for generations. What has this accomplished them? Even the first black president didn't help them. Economics is largely local and when parties create polices, regulations and an environment hostile to business then economic growth will be static at best.

[Adam Jensen]

ISIS are cancer. Fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the US are cancer.

Christians and Muslims are mostly fairly moderate, dull people. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Christ, I even had the word "fundamentalist" in my post to indicate that I wasn't talking about mainstream Christianity.

- - - Updated - - -

democrats were republicans, republicans were democrats there was even a democratic republican party none of which has anything to do with the parties today. Please go read a history book, it is both sad and disturbing that people perpetuate this myth.

And even if that weren't the case, who gives a shit what either party did 150 years ago. That's irrelevant. None of those policies or policymakers even exist anymore.