The Far left trying to get rid of the Electoral College

[cubby]

All votes do count.

Not in the EC, not equally.

Math is fun.

[Elegiac]

It isn't that much the Electoral College, that bothers me, but the "winner takes it all" principle, making all votes of the "losing party" meaningless. Why not deviding the college members by the percentage of votes, the party got of a certain state? I honestly just don't get that... and it pritty much makes the election odd. It is possible, to have an all red/ blue map for example, but the popular vote was 50,1% vs 49,9%

Largely because it doesn't avoid the issue of smaller states being vastly overrepresented.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I"m sorry - I show disdain for my "fellow Americans" that look down their noses at the backbone of America. You might consider my definition of hard work as "patently ludicrous definition" or "stupid", so what? I find your equivocation of debugging software as "hard work" to be just as patently ludicrous and stupid. So goes life.

When folks dismiss, with condescension, the "fly-over" states and the people that live in those states as "deplorable" or "uneducated" and that they should not have as equal of a say in the governance of this country...well, after a while you want to tell those people to pretty much go fuck themselves.

Who's saying folks in fly over states should have less say in our presidency?

At the moment people in fly over states have MORE say in presidential elections than those in big states.

So the question REALLY becomes, why should these people have MORE say and people in bigger states have less say?

[cubby]

Towards the popular vote, yes. But the popular vote is meaningless, and winner-take-all EC states essentially invalidate the votes of the "loser" in their respective state. Not a single Republican vote in California or Democratic vote in Texas contributed towards that states EC vote. That functionally invalidates their votes and removes any meaning from them.

And don't forget the disproportionality of each vote in the EC as well. A person in MT's vote being worth 4x that of a person in CA's vote.

[Eviscero]

Funnily enough it was a concession made by New Englanders and Midlanders during ratification with the 3/5th compromise, the "great" compromise (the Senate) and the EC, all concessions made to authoritarian Southern Slave Lords to get them to join the union because the New Englanders and Midlanders were afraid of a foreign invasion, so they wanted a united coast. The Deep South is the genesis of the modern conservative ideology, they have always been against democracy, worshipping their political and wealthy elite as demi-gods, where dissent was met with brutal violence.

Exactly my point. 150 years is not enough time to change hearts and minds, it just isn't.

[Taso]

Idk why they would want to get rid of it? The electoral college is not the problem. (As the united states, we are officially known as a federal-republic. The republic and federal aspect are important because this country was never a democracy to begin with. All 50 states have a degree of autonmy as granted between the Articles of confederation and the current constituion. The whole states rights stems further back then the 60s and 1800s.)<--- (this is just to highlight the actual system of the u.s)

The electoral college is essentially people we elect who will make sure that the person elected is a not a terrible or harmful person. If people are that angry that the electoral college does not coincide with the popularity vote thats silly. You should not elect on popularity just because they sound good does not mean they are actually good. Word is one thing action is another. The electors if you really want them to make the best choice elect people who will remove the laws binding them to a specific party. Then they can decide on who they actually think will do the best jobs. After all we saw more electors chose someone else other then hiliary compared to those who voted trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ection%2C_2016

[Kujako]

Some votes count less than others.

And some not at all. Republican votes in CA for example. Perhaps we take baby steps and just get rid of winner take all state elections first?

[Jastall]

I can appreciate your point, and I can even give you a valid example of why you could be right. The state of Virginia. If you watched that state on election night, it was solid red - until Northern Virginia reported. Being that I spent 46 of 53 year in the area, I know what the demographic is there. In other words, had it not been for NoVA, Trump would have won VA, by a very large margin. So in that case you have a point. Your state is another prime example - certain pockets ensured a Democratic win.

And that is exactly why we need the EC. Heavily populated areas should NOT be allowed to decide the fate of an entire country. Regardless of the fact that entire state of Montana (1.04m) has less people then Los Angeles (4m), those people that live there have legitimate different needs and desires - and they are every bit as relevant as the needs of folks that live in cities, whether you like it or not. (you being rhetorical). They should not - and will not - be dismissed out of hand, as has been done many time by folks in this thread, as "unimportant". In other words, the guy mending cattle fences in Montana is just as important as the guy debugging software in San Francisco. The only thing is, the guy mending fences in Montana is hugely outnumbered by the guys debugging software in SF, so his voice is not given as much weight - hence, the EC.

And Congress is there to represent these people. They already have an equal voice to everyone in the Senate, and are also represented in the House. The vast majority of democratic systems attempt to give everyone a voice in the legislative.

But the election of the executive shouldn't be tied down to that. It should be the most popular candidate, period. It's up to them to appeal to the majority of voters, rather than those in key states only. As it is, the voters in California or Texas are just worthless while those in swing states hold all the power when it comes to the executive. That's just stupid. Making it purely popular vote would give a voice to Democrats in Texas, sure, but also to Republicans in California and a myriad of other solid blue states.

[Edge-]

And don't forget the disproportionality of each vote in the EC as well. A person in MT's vote being worth 4x that of a person in CA's vote.

Yup, it blows my mind that folks defend that disparity as somehow "democratic" in any way.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Are you saying there are more programmers than fencemenders and consequently they have a larger voice? Because if so, that sounds exactly like democracy, to me. Why should have have proportionally more say if there are fewer of them?

Imagine my surprise that Ransath is arguing for the social justice of fencemenders because programmers are over represented by comparison.

Truly, I am shocked that the right plays the social justice game when they (pretend to) care about the people like them.

(not really, the right has been social justice warriors since I was a tyke, they just begrudged the left when they started doing it)

[Deleted]

This is a very good point re the merits of the EC. However, I want to know why you think the fence mender in Montana's vote is worth more than the software debugger in CA?

Serious question - not baiting you or anything, I promise. This question, imho, is at the heart of the debate between pro/con EC.

Because there is a heck of a lot more software software debuggers in CA then there are fence menders in MT, so the odds are unfairly stacked ensuring that the fence mender would not have an equal say. It is a bit like a golf handicap, if you know how they work.

Let me give you a different example. Let's say that the country, as a whole, got to decide on funds for snow removal. Well, the Southern states that see no snow and have no need for snow removal equipment would think "Well, we really do not need to allocate much money for that" while the Northern states would see it as "that is an essential part of our existence, we need as much money as we can get". Now, if the Southern states had more say than the Northern states it is likely that the Northern states would never have adequate funding.

Now, let's go to another example, a legitimate one - gay marriage. Without a doubt, the majority of support for gay marriage comes from urban centers. Because there are more people in urban areas, the debate gets skewed. Regardless of whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the largely rural areas (that tend to be more religious) do not. While you may not agree with their POV, they none the less should be given equal weight solely on the fact that their opinion matters just as much as your does, whether you like their opinion or not. They are still citizens of this country and they are still entitled to their right of equal representation. Now, that may not sit well with the folks in the urban centers, but that is beside the point. Again, a mass of people centered in one area should not have the power to decide the fate of an entire nation.

It seems that most of the folks that want to do away with the EC want just that - a mass of centralized people deciding the fate of an entire country. But that is not the way this Republic was set up. This government is representative of ALL the people, not just the people that think alike.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

And some not at all. Republican votes in CA for example. Perhaps we take baby steps and just get rid of winner take all state elections first?

This has been my opinion, at least the last few election cycles. EC votes should be split up proportionally instead of allotted wholesale. There's no real reason to not do this, two states (Maine and either Kansas or Nebraska) already have divided EC votes. This would also be a way to start allowing third parties more political clout and if nothing else simply having more voices in our national political discussions is sorely needed right now.

[Edge-]

Because there is a heck of a lot more software software debuggers in CA then there are fence menders in MT, so the odds are unfairly stacked ensuring that the fence mender would not have an equal say. It is a bit like a golf handicap, if you know how they work.

You're literally describing democracy, and then saying that you don't like it because minorities don't have an equal say.

What the fuck is this even, and when did you turn into a liberal?

[Elegiac]

Now, let's go to another example, a legitimate one - gay marriage. Without a doubt, the majority of support for gay marriage comes from urban centers. Because there are more people in urban areas, the debate gets skewed. Regardless of whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the largely rural areas (that tend to be more religious) do not. While you may not agree with their POV, they none the less should be given equal weight solely on the fact that their opinion matters just as much as your does, whether you like their opinion or not. They are still citizens of this country and they are still entitled to their right of equal representation. Now, that may not sit well with the folks in the urban centers, but that is beside the point. Again, a mass of people centered in one area should not have the power to decide the fate of an entire nation.

Considering that the EC and the federal structure was conceived so as to protect the perpetuation of an institution of civil oppression, that this argument would come up is hardly surprising.

[Stormspellz]

Sorry CA can't win you the election every time.

A highly populated state, with one of the largest economies in the worlde and one of the largest contributors to the federal budget is far better then a state of 1/5 the population and impact on the country but double the electoral weight in terms of a person's vote.

[Wyrt]

Apparently wanting people to not be disenfranchised by an archaic and undemocratic system is now "far left."

[Cthulhu 2020]

Let me give you a different example. Let's say that the country, as a whole, got to decide on funds for snow removal. Well, the Southern states that see no snow and have no need for snow removal equipment would think "Well, we really do not need to allocate much money for that" while the Northern states would see it as "that is an essential part of our existence, we need as much money as we can get". Now, if the Southern states had more say than the Northern states it is likely that the Northern states would never have adequate funding.

Then why are you arguing that fence menders should have equal say if there are less of them? Why should fence menders make decisions on policy for programmers, who far outnumber them in this country?

Now, let's go to another example, a legitimate one - gay marriage.

And in the case of gay marriage, the majority of support was there before it was even legalized. It wasn't even the tyranny of the majority that kept gay marriage from passing earlier. It was a bunch of old farts in the government representing a minority of the people who wanted to keep it illegal. Again, why should less people have more say?

[Stormspellz]

And some not at all. Republican votes in CA for example. Perhaps we take baby steps and just get rid of winner take all state elections first?

Without the battleground states going away from a winner take all, it would be political suicide of the dem party for CA, Il, ect to go to a percentage system.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Apparently wanting people to not be disenfranchised by an archaic and undemocratic system is now "far left."

Well let's look at history.

The right have been masters of oppressing the majority of the nation through minority opinion. They just keep thinking up new and ugly ways to do it.

[Xeones]

Because there is a heck of a lot more software software debuggers in CA then there are fence menders in MT, so the odds are unfairly stacked ensuring that the fence mender would not have an equal say. It is a bit like a golf handicap, if you know how they work.

Let me give you a different example. Let's say that the country, as a whole, got to decide on funds for snow removal. Well, the Southern states that see no snow and have no need for snow removal equipment would think "Well, we really do not need to allocate much money for that" while the Northern states would see it as "that is an essential part of our existence, we need as much money as we can get". Now, if the Southern states had more say than the Northern states it is likely that the Northern states would never have adequate funding.

Now, let's go to another example, a legitimate one - gay marriage. Without a doubt, the majority of support for gay marriage comes from urban centers. Because there are more people in urban areas, the debate gets skewed. Regardless of whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the largely rural areas (that tend to be more religious) do not. While you may not agree with their POV, they none the less should be given equal weight solely on the fact that their opinion matters just as much as your does, whether you like their opinion or not. They are still citizens of this country and they are still entitled to their right of equal representation. Now, that may not sit well with the folks in the urban centers, but that is beside the point. Again, a mass of people centered in one area should not have the power to decide the fate of an entire nation.

It seems that most of the folks that want to do away with the EC want just that - a mass of centralized people deciding the fate of an entire country. But that is not the way this Republic was set up. This government is representative of ALL the people, not just the people that think alike.

So northern states, in your example ignoring snow is a local issue, should get more representation than southern states for a single issue and ignore southern issues?

What?

I mean this is what the senate is for. So each state gets an equal voice and can work towards issues for their state and/or region with other states. I mean our entire congress just passed some funding to help with hurricane damage which is obviously a localized problem. We we are clearly willing to help each other out.

Now this really doesn't have much to do with presidential representation and I don't even know what a civil rights issue is being brought up here for presidential vote representation either.

We have a legislative branch for all the issues you just brought up, and a constitutional amendment process for trying to violate the rights of our citizens that you seem to be trying to support.

The president is Americas voice to the world. I don't see why your select people deserve to be the ones to decide who that is rather than every american citizen.