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

[Dextroden]

No, it means they only need campaign in a handful of cities who massive populations outweigh everyone else.

That would give much more time to pretend to give a shit about the places they don't visit.

[Seranthor]

Of course in a democracy the faction that represents the interests of FEWER people and gets voted for by FEWER people should NEVER be in control.
Anything else would be a poorly designed system... Oh wait, here you are, for the 4th time in the history of your nation, with a president in office whom less than half of the people voted for (I'll reserve specific criticism of that creature since that's not what this thread's about).

There are so many systematic flaws in the structure of your government (only two parties, obvious bribery and corruption everywhere, 1st amendmend protects hatred as much as it protects protection-worthy free speech, 2nd amendmend exists, too much religion in laws, all politicians waste 1/2 of their time in office and many million dollars for election campaigning bullshit etc.), the biggest one is the complete and utter inability to EVER re-build it to be better. 2x4 years with a 2-year-long inability-to-govern-due-to-wasting-time-campaigning-for-re-election nonsense inbetween is not enough time to get anything of this scale done, on top of the multiple 2/3 majorities required in multiple governing bodies.

The shit's over 200 years old now and there's no way of peaceful reform in sight. It's frustrating to watch even from the safe distance of half a world away.

lets count the flaws in your post.

1) the US is not a democracy
2) 5th time
3) neither major candidate got 50% of the votes in 2016
4) definately more than 2 parties, your education fails you
5) dont like our laws, easy, dont come here
6) dont like like our version of free speech, we dont care
7) dont like our election system, we dont care.

There are more than 7... but, I dont care to list the rest of them.

[Matchles]

It couldn't be that total Democrat control of the Gov't Infrastructure left a bad taste in voters preference. Unprecedented.....you mean partisanship where another party opposes the ruling parties policies??? Yeah, we never saw that 2000-2008. The pendulum swung away from Liberal policy and Gerrymandering was the goto excuse. People voted with their wallet and found the Democrat policies lacking the last 8 yrs. But continue to enlighten us otherwise, by all means!

Please reply with quote next time if you want a discussion. I'm not going to read every single response in anticipation of a response and won't get a notification otherwise.

Now before getting all defensive, notice I said it was unprecedented obstruction. Now that isn't even up for debate. The 80th Congress in 1947 was called the "Do nothing" Congress because of how few bills they passed. It was a split Congress with Dems holding the Senate and Republicans holding the House. They only passed 906 bills those 2 years. Fast forward to the 112th Congress that started in 2011. This is when the Republicans took the House and Mitch McConnell is on record saying the GOP's top priority was to make Obama a 1 term president. They passed 283 bill over those two years. SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE fewer bills than the "Do Nothing Congress." Then take the 113th Congress, where the GOP took the Senate too. Going to be more productive right? Well they passed 201 bills in the first 23 months. Luckily they passed 96 in the lame duck session to make it to a whopping 297 bills passed in two years. So add them together and you have over the course of 4 years Congress passed 323 fewer bills than the "do nothing Congress" did in 2.

So was it unprecedented? Yes, by any account it was. Turns out when you hire people who run on the platform that government doesn't work, they get rewarded instead of punished for sitting on their ass doing nothing and making their platform true. And before you start talking about Obama's veto power. You have to go back to Warren G. Harding (who died two years into his term) to find a president that has fewer vetoes than Obama. Obama has 12 and a few of them were procedural where the Congress asked him to veto so they could amend a bill because of an error.

[Seranthor]

Damn that internet... it catches so many of those hypocrites.

[Matchles]

Damn that internet... it catches so many of those hypocrites.

Is it the same author? If not, is it hypocrisy for two people to have differing opinions at a publication?

Edit: it is even sillier than I thought. One is written by Posner, a judge on the 7th circuit Court of Appeals and one is written by a Slate journalist. How could they possibly have different opinions?!?

[Dextroden]

Is it the same author? If not, is it hypocrisy for two people to have differing opinions at a publication?

Edit: it is even sillier than I thought. One is written by Posner, a judge on the 7th circuit Court of Appeals and one is written by a Slate journalist. How could they possibly have different opinions?!?

They still ran it, which means Slate had no problem having their name attached to being Pro-EC.

Florida: If you didn't win it, the election is rigged. (2000, 2008, 2016)

[CostinR]

Republicans seems to be doing just fine winning the House, Senate, Governships and State Legislatures.

The presidency ain't the only office that matters ya know.

[Matchles]

They still ran it, which means Slate had no problem having their name attached to being Pro-EC.

Florida: If you didn't win it, the election is rigged. (2000, 2008, 2016)

So? What do you think they do? Only publish articles that the head editor agree with 100%?

[Kindria]

Please reply with quote next time if you want a discussion. I'm not going to read every single response in anticipation of a response and won't get a notification otherwise.

Now before getting all defensive, notice I said it was unprecedented obstruction. Now that isn't even up for debate. The 80th Congress in 1947 was called the "Do nothing" Congress because of how few bills they passed. It was a split Congress with Dems holding the Senate and Republicans holding the House. They only passed 906 bills those 2 years. Fast forward to the 112th Congress that started in 2011. This is when the Republicans took the House and Mitch McConnell is on record saying the GOP's top priority was to make Obama a 1 term president. They passed 283 bill over those two years. SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE fewer bills than the "Do Nothing Congress." Then take the 113th Congress, where the GOP took the Senate too. Going to be more productive right? Well they passed 201 bills in the first 23 months. Luckily they passed 96 in the lame duck session to make it to a whopping 297 bills passed in two years. So add them together and you have over the course of 4 years Congress passed 323 fewer bills than the "do nothing Congress" did in 2.

So was it unprecedented? Yes, by any account it was. Turns out when you hire people who run on the platform that government doesn't work, they get rewarded instead of punished for sitting on their ass doing nothing and making their platform true. And before you start talking about Obama's veto power. You have to go back to Warren G. Harding (who died two years into his term) to find a president that has fewer vetoes than Obama. Obama has 12 and a few of them were procedural where the Congress asked him to veto so they could amend a bill because of an error.

Awwww your worried about Obstruction. Yeah Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi Never sowed seeds of distrust. I kind of remember The Obama Administration getting a lot done 2009-2010, then the midterms happend and put the brakes on. Revisionist history is fun and all but quoting the number of bills passed or a catch all approval rating of congress when most member are sitting at 50% is not very convincing. Really, you brought up Warren G Harding? Preferably a less Productive Legislative branch is more beneficial to the American Citizen, seriously do we really need more legislation?

[nebula]

Republicans seems to be doing just fine winning the House, Senate, Governships and State Legislatures.

The presidency ain't the only office that matters ya know.

So after the electoral college is gone, we need to fix the asinine gerrymandering in most states, got it.

[CostinR]

So after the electoral college is gone, we need to fix the asinine gerrymanding is most states, got it.

Senate? Governships? State Legislatures? Gerrymandering got damned little to do with that.

California fixed it's gerrymandering, didn't change much for House Republicans there. Democrats, your problem is far worse then the EC or gerrymandering, by latching on to these issues you're not helping yourselves win.

Your message sucks, your elected officials are widely reviled ( who the hell picks Pelosi thinking it's a GOOD idea? I know Illinois Democratic voters who voted for Clinton who'd vote for Trump in 4 years just because of Pelosi ) and the only thing you do when losing is act like bad losers.

[Seranthor]

Quotient == Quota.

Do you even translate?

Quotient <> Quota... Words have power, learn to use the right words.

[Matchles]

Awwww your worried about Obstruction. Yeah Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi Never sowed seeds of distrust. I kind of remember The Obama Administration getting a lot done 2009-2010, then the midterms happend and put the brakes on. Revisionist history is fun and all but quoting the number of bills passed or a catch all approval rating of congress when most member are sitting at 50% is not very convincing. Really, you brought up Warren G Harding? Preferably a less Productive Legislative branch is more beneficial to the American Citizen, seriously do we really need more legislation?

Okay. What does it matter? Let's say I accept your conclusion that voters want Congress to do nothing. What does that have to do with whether their inaction is unprecedented? You are imagining slights and I guess trying to anticipate my position. But let's stick with what is on the page k?

[Seranthor]

You mean white racists. I seem to encounter FAR more black people who are racist than white people who are racist.

Careful, certain persons will punish you for speaking like that.

[Torgent]

It's this kind of thinking that shows how little people understand about anything: The President isn't elected by Popular Vote. Never has been.

The STATES elect the President via Electoral College. The citizens elect representatives.

The current system doesn't make sense? You conveniently brush aside the fact that "Popular Vote" puts all the power into a few cities and removes the voice of those who don't live in Big Cities.

Until you get a constitutional amendment (read: the Saturday after Obama takes your guns and Trump puts the gays and Muslims in concentration camps... aka never), this is the way it is. End of story.

1. I never said that the president is elected by popular vote.
2. The citizens do not elect the electoral college representatives.
3. You conveniently brush aside the fact that the popular vote puts all the power into the people and makes every single voice equal.
4. Don't post if you have nothing intelligent to say about what I said <3

[artemishunter1]

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

True. I can see few possibilities:
a)President would always be democrate. Senate and House always republican (since those states are not going to take it lying down). Presidential power will be severely curtailed. House and Senate will decide the course of the nation through amendments to the constitution.
or
b)Repub might change immigration laws to encourage White Immigrants from Eastern Europe like Poland, even Russia and put them on welfare and increase breeding rate. Since, those immigrants traditionally assimilate and vote repub. we might reach a balance of power (dems supported by hispanic immigrants and repub. supported by White Eastern Europeans). The Nation as whole might implode from within in the mean time.

- - - Updated - - -

1. I never said that the president is elected by popular vote.
2. The citizens do not elect the electoral college representatives.
3. You conveniently brush aside the fact that the popular vote puts all the power into the people and makes every single voice equal.
4. Don't post if you have nothing intelligent to say about what I said <3

Except, those people are not going to be American. NY and Cali. will decide american presidency. Two states majority immigrant. Just coming there does not make someone American. Those people do not share American Language, Culture and Values. You would literally give presidency to non Americans (since first gen. will ALWAYS outnumber second and third gen who are REAL American).

[Cthulhu 2020]

I know how it works just fine. I'm telling you it doesn't make any sense for the Republicans to have drawn the lines that way because it results in the Democrats getting one seat instead of zero. Whereas you and others mistakenly believe it would get them three if it was drawn different.

Florida is pretty close. Packing the urban areas of 3 of Florida's biggest cities into one district... Gerrymandering doesn't have to be 90% to be effective. Florida is filled with old racist retired people. You know, the types who were alive when beating a black person in the streets wasn't prosecutable. Even in the cities. So yeah, if the districts were drawn into less "skinny" shapes they'd probably own many more with cities thrown in with rural areas, and not playing connect-the-dots with urban centers.

[Kindria]

Okay. What does it matter? Let's say I accept your conclusion that voters want Congress to do nothing. What does that have to do with whether their inaction is unprecedented? You are imagining slights and I guess trying to anticipate my position. But let's stick with what is on the page k?

Why does being Unprecedented matter? President Obama Overstepped his supposed Mandate, and clearly if you're concerned about gerrymandering and congressional control, Democrats have held the lower chamber much longer then Republicans at a ratio of 11:3 since 1945.

[Torgent]

Except, those people are not going to be American. NY and Cali. will decide american presidency. Two states majority immigrant. Just coming there does not make someone American. Those people do not share American Language, Culture and Values. You would literally give presidency to non Americans (since first gen. will ALWAYS outnumber second and third gen who are REAL American).

So California and New York isn't part of America just because they have immigrants? Immigrants ARE American. YOU are descendant of an immigrant. Stop acting like you belong here just because your family is white and from across an ocean, whereas these immigrants are brown and come from 50 miles from the border.

[alexw]

Why does being Unprecedented matter? President Obama Overstepped his supposed Mandate, and clearly if you're concerned about gerrymandering and congressional control, Democrats have held the lower chamber much longer then Republicans at a ratio of 11:3 since 1945.

Err what on earth??? How has the length of time that democrats have held the house got anything to do with gerrymandering? Do you even understand what gerrymandering is?