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

[Itisamuh]

I don't think there's any way to really know short of abolishing it and seeing what happens. The fact is a lot of people don't bother voting because they already know which way their state's vote will go to. There'd be a much bigger voting turnout if popular vote counted so it's possible either side would take the lead.

[Uncle]

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.

Cool, but IQ has never been a measure of people intelligence, it's only a score when you do a test of knowledge.

[Shibito]

republicans with just pretend to be liberals and problem its fixed

They were liberals tho, Democrats will forever be the party of the klan.

[Obelisk Kai]

They were liberals tho, Democrats will forever be the party of the klan.

Wasn't the Republican candidate endorsed by the Klan?

[Flutterguy]

Well, the electoral college isn't going anywhere for at least 2 years. 4 most likely. A proposal to amend the consititution to a direct democracy would require 2/3 Senate and House before it even reaches the states in which it would then require 3/4 of all US states to approve the measure through their respective legislative bodies. This is where small states are once more protected from the tyranny of large states as population means nothing in this process. Each state counts as one vote.

Good luck convincing all those red states you despise that they should drop the electoral college which actually protects them.

[Darkeon]

Quite unlikely. But I suppose it'd be "working as intended" if that was the case.

[Gestopft]

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

They would have no choice but to adapt, because:

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.

The GoP is at odds with a majority of the electorate (and/or especially with younger voters) on many, many issues. Gay marriage, abortion, climate change, wealth inequality, minimum wage, some gun control, money in politics, etc.

They know they are losing the ideological battle too. If your party tries to win by preventing people from voting, maybe that party needs better ideas.

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.

Bingo. They're fine with minority rule, as long as it's them in charge.

[Obelisk Kai]

Well, the electoral college isn't going anywhere for at least 2 years. 4 most likely. A proposal to amend the consititution to a direct democracy would require 2/3 Senate and House before it even reaches the states in which it would then require 3/4 of all US states to approve the measure through their respective legislative bodies. This is where small states are once more protected from the tyranny of large states as population means nothing in this process. Each state counts as one vote.

Good luck convincing all those red states you despise that they should drop the electoral college which actually protects them.

It's impossible to do it that way. Which is why opponents are using another method, trying to get enough states to pass a law that would award their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner regardless of the outcome in their own state. Once enough states, i.e. 270+, pass this initiative, the electoral college is effectively abolished.

That method has a vastly greater chance of success over time than the traditional method.

[Gestopft]

Well, the electoral college isn't going anywhere for at least 2 years. 4 most likely. A proposal to amend the consititution to a direct democracy would require 2/3 Senate and House before it even reaches the states in which it would then require 3/4 of all US states to approve the measure through their respective legislative bodies. This is where small states are once more protected from the tyranny of large states as population means nothing in this process. Each state counts as one vote.

Good luck convincing all those red states you despise that they should drop the electoral college which actually protects them.

Yeah, the Senate is already extremely weighted toward low-pop states.

[Flutterguy]

It's impossible to do it that way. Which is why opponents are using another method, trying to get enough states to pass a law that would award their electoral college votes to the popular vote winner regardless of the outcome in their own state. Once enough states, i.e. 270+, pass this initiative, the electoral college is effectively abolished.

That method has a vastly greater chance of success over time than the traditional method.

It would only work in states that already heavily favor democrats which would be redundant.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, the Senate is already extremely weighted toward low-pop states.

By design as the House is weighted heavily in favor of large states. This is basic civics man.

[Obelisk Kai]

It would only work in states that already heavily favor democrats which would be redundant.

- - - Updated - - -

Think of it as a sword of damocles hanging over the EC. It is much easier to abolish than you might think, but much easier than impossible is still pretty tough.

By design as the House is weighted heavily in favor of large states. This is basic civics man.

Which the Republicans then gerrymandered as much as humanly possible. Even when they receive less votes, they still get more seats. There's no point lauding the checks of balances of government when one side has been systematically undermined. From the Senate, to the House to the electoral college, everything that can be done to disenfranchise most and empower some has been done.

And they still talk of having a mandate with a straight face.

I don't care what side you are on, this is not democracy. This is farce and in the long term it is dangerous.

[SirBeef]

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.

Shouldn't matter though, the Senate acts as the balancing power for states. Conservative states usually have two republican senators.

[Flutterguy]

Think of it as a sword of damocles hanging over the EC. It is much easier to abolish than you might think, but much easier than impossible is still pretty tough.





Which the Republicans then gerrymandered as much as humanly possible. Even when they receive less votes, they still get more seats. There's no point lauding the checks of balances of government when one side has been systematically undermined.

Why do Libs bring up gerrymandering like they're somehow innocent? That system works for both parties.

[SirBeef]

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.

Funny you say that considering Regan gave amnesty to 2.7 illegals the largest wide scale use of amnesty ever.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do Libs bring up gerrymandering like they're somehow innocent? That system works for both parties.

It does, but it really has not been used in the manner that it is being used now by republicans.

[Obelisk Kai]

Why do Libs bring up gerrymandering like they're somehow innocent? That system works for both parties.

False equivalence. Do Democrats gerrymander? Yes. But Republicans use gerrymandering on an industrial scale and have been vastly more successful at it, especially when coupled with their voter suppression efforts. They even wrote a computer program to give them the best results on a street by street basis.

Besides, defending a wrong by saying everyone does it is moral bankruptcy. Gerrymandering is wrong, period, no matter who does it. If you really think that every action taken to ensure a conservative majority is OK, then why persist with this farce?

Do away with democracy altogether and just institute one party rule a la the Chinese model.

[Flutterguy]

Funny you say that considering Regan gave amnesty to 2.7 illegals the largest wide scale use of amnesty ever.

- - - Updated - - -



It does, but it really has not been used in the manner that it is being used now by republicans.

"Republicans beat us by the rules. We need to change the rules!" lol

Also, Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange to stronger border control. The border control never came because they got their amnesty. I will never support amnesty again. Simple as that.

[Gestopft]

By design as the House is weighted heavily in favor of large states. This is basic civics man.

Technically, not really. Just like the E.C. smaller states have more representation per capita than large states.

[Flutterguy]

False equivalence. Do Democrats gerrymander? Yes. But Republicans use gerrymandering on an industrial scale and have been vastly more successful at it, especially when coupled with their voter suppression efforts. They even wrote a computer program to give them the best results on a street by street basis.

Besides, defending a wrong by saying everyone does it is moral bankruptcy. Gerrymandering is wrong, period, no matter who does it. If you really think that every action taken to ensure a conservative majority is OK, then why persist with this farce?

Do away with democracy altogether and just institute one party rule a la the Chinese model.

Your party had absolute control over the government from 2008-2010. Absolute control. Super majority. Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. Go cry in your pillow. Democrats won fair and square in 2008 and that's all they did with their mandate. Hell, you should listen to Barack Obama. "I won. Deal with it." Damn right.

[ati87]

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.

And this is why you can not have a honest discussion with any right winger few post in and they always make the entire discussion disgusting.

Is their any discussion the likes of you can have without calling yourself superior?
Any discussion about religion, sex, immigration or anything that's a bit political and right wingers start to call themselves superior because of your race?

[Flutterguy]

Technically, not really. Just like the E.C. smaller states have more representation per capita than large states.

The House still weighs heavily in favor of larger states. California alone holds 1/5 of the entire House even with being capped for votes. Per capita is a piss poor argument and means nothing for the distribution of power.