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

[Joobulon]

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

[Tierbook]

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

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.

[caervek]

Yes because if it became a case of "whoever has the most total votes wins" then the US election would become more than a two horse race as other candidates would actually have a chance. I.E If the election had featured every Republican/Democrat nominee then Trump would have got significantly more votes then the person who came second (because Hillery/Bernie would have split the left wing vote).

[Daerio]

If EC was ended and we granted open boarders and amnesty to all illegals the way Democrats want, we would effectively become a one party system. People would have to run on the right or left of the Democratic party. I do also think it will have impacts beyond party affiliation and personally I don't think it will be a great time.

[Deleted]

They let in so many Latin immigrants that it would be harder and harder (they also get more children).
The number of millennials that didnt amount to much also doesnt help a conservative party very much.

[Flarelaine]

Hanging to issues just because they are in a book that was relevant to a Bronze Age tribe in a desert once also does not help very much.

[Adam Jensen]

Yes, they could.
But not in its current form; they would have to adapt.

Dropping the Religious Right would be a great way to start.

I mean, is the voting block of fundamentalist Christians still so great the GOP needs to keep this cancer?

[Seranthor]

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

The likelihood that the Electoral College ever goes away is very slim. You would need a constitutional amendment to do that. Which would require 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and the voters in 38 states to approve. All it would take to sink this one would be voters in 13 of the small states to decide they didn't want to be give up their voice to the folks on either coast and then this amendment dies.

[Dsc]

Bio-metric voter ID, US Citizens only. with a paper trail?

In Landslides.

[Obelisk Kai]

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

OR the Republican party can define a platform that commands the votes of a majority of voters, rather than relying on voter suppression, gerrymandering and a two hundred year old outdated constitutional construct to maintain relevance. At some point, the reliance on old white voters living in swing states will no longer be enough and they will have to adapt or die.

Despite their victory right now, the demographic trends everyone was talking about before the election have not gone away. The victory has delayed, not removed, the inevitable reckoning that is to come.

Also the number of people of this thread trying to justify an anti democratic system like the electoral college on the grounds that more people vote for the other side is shocking. Do you people value democracy at all? Because if this is your attitude, why let the Democrats win at all? Why keep up the pretense of using the EC? Why not just institute a junta and do away with elections if the people are going to keep returning the wrong answer?

In fact, let me elaborate. The OP presumes that the electoral college allows the Republicans to win sometime, and that they would have no chance under a more democratic system. This is ridiculous. What you really mean is, the electoral college allows the Repbulican party to win sometimes without being responsive to the population. If the Republicans cannot win under a purely democratic system due to their platforms and policies, then continued general election losses would compel them to modify their policies and platform to win.
The electoral college...as well as everything else they do...insulates them from being responsive to the people and prevents them from facing the reality that will crash upon them in the next few electoral cycles.

[Venant]

OR the Republican party can define a platform that commands the votes of a majority of voters, rather than relying on voter suppression, gerrymandering and a two hundred year old outdated constitutional construct to maintain relevance. At some point, the reliance on old white voters living in swing states will no longer be enough and they will have to adapt or die.

Despite their victory right now, the demographic trends everyone was talking about before the election have not gone away. The victory has delayed, not removed, the inevitable reckoning that is to come.

Also the number of people of this thread trying to justify an anti democratic system like the electoral college on the grounds that more people vote for the other side is shocking. Do you people value democracy at all? Because if this is your attitude, why let the Democrats win at all? Why keep up the pretense of using the EC? Why not just institute a junta and do away with elections if the people are going to keep returning the wrong answer?

We don't have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic. The problem with a pure democracy is that it will fail as soon as somebody has the bright idea to flood a country with low IQ voters for the sake of political power.

[Obelisk Kai]

We don't have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic. The problem with a pure democracy is that it will fail as soon as somebody has the bright idea to flood a country with low IQ voters for the sake of political power.

That only works if you buy into the idea that your opposition is full of low IQ voters. I believe by that, you mean migrants. Yet on the liberal side, they routinely characterise Republican voters as hick morons. Maybe you are as guilty of stereotyping others as they are?

As for the constitutional republic excuse, I call bull on that. The tyranny of the majority is a great soundbite to justify the electoral college, but in practice it's the tyranny of an empowered minority...voters in battleground states...that is the result. The electoral college has now frustrated the popular will twice in five elections.

That is bad for everyone, even the winning side, as it de-legitimizes the winning candidate.

Besides, let's be frank. The reason Republicans like the electoral college, why they defend it with this pseudo-intellectual framework, is that it is the only way they can win the Presidency and still maintain their hard right policies. If they had to compete across the country for every vote, they'd actually have to shift their positions. If the Democrats were the ones who had to rely on the EC to win, the Republicans would be singing a very different hymn.

Ditto the Democrats on that.

[Mayhem]

Yes because if it became a case of "whoever has the most total votes wins" then the US election would become more than a two horse race as other candidates would actually have a chance. I.E If the election had featured every Republican/Democrat nominee then Trump would have got significantly more votes then the person who came second (because Hillery/Bernie would have split the left wing vote).

Why are you implying that the parties wouldn´t just choose one candidate to run with?

[Obelisk Kai]

Why are you implying that the parties wouldn´t just choose one candidate to run with?

France solved this problem. Have all the candidates run in the first round, then the top two have a run off in the final round and the winner becomes President. It's a clever way of ensuring everyone gets a chance to win and that the final winner has a legitimate mandate to govern.

[Venant]

That only works if you buy into the idea that your opposition is full of low IQ voters. I believe by that, you mean migrants. Yet on the liberal side, they routinely characterise Republican voters as hick morons. Maybe you are as guilty of stereotyping others as they are?

As for the constitutional republic excuse, I call bull on that. The tyranny of the majority is a great soundbite to justify the electoral college, but in practice it's the tyranny of an empowered minority...voters in battleground states...that is the result. The electoral college has now frustrated the popular will twice in five elections.

That is bad for everyone, even the winning side, as it de-legitimizes the winning candidate.

Besides, let's be frank. The reason Republicans like the electoral college, why they defend it with this pseudo-intellectual framework, is that it is the only way they can win the Presidency and still maintain their hard right policies. If they had to compete across the country for every vote, they'd actually have to shift their positions. If the Democrats were the ones who had to rely on the EC to win, the Republicans would be singing a very different hymn.

Ditto the Democrats on that.

When you are talking about mass immigration in the 10s of millions, you need to address the average IQ of the region. In Mexico and South America, the average IQ is 10 to 20 points lower than that in the United States.

[KrazyK923]

If EC was ended and we granted open boarders and amnesty to all illegals the way Democrats want, we would effectively become a one party system. People would have to run on the right or left of the Democratic party. I do also think it will have impacts beyond party affiliation and personally I don't think it will be a great time.

Its amazing to me that even when your stooge wins you still just blatantly lie.

[caervek]

Why are you implying that the parties wouldn´t just choose one candidate to run with?

I wasn't.

[Deleted]

republicans with just pretend to be liberals and problem its fixed

[Obelisk Kai]

When you are talking about mass immigration in the 10s of millions, you need to address the average IQ of the region. In Mexico and South America, the average IQ is 10 to 20 points lower than that in the United States.

...

Okay, firstly, out of everything I said it appears that this is the point you felt the need to respond on.

Can you please provide the evidence that the average IQ of the average Latino is 10 to 20 points lower than the average American? Because as much as I'd love to rely on your word alone, I'd like to see the cold hard facts. .

[Mayhem]

I wasn't.

Is there a third party that could get votes purely off of one side of the big two? Also the republicans didn´t win this election because more people voted republican, but because less people voted democrat. So in a way, this already happens.