The Electoral College in the US: modify, keep, or discard it?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



dadudemon
What if the votes were split in each state by vote? Would this have allowed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 Presidential Election?

I will do the math and math analysis, later, to see how it would turn out. My initial guess is that Trump still wins the election if you divided up votes proportionally.

But is this the solution people want in the US? If not, how do you balance giving a voice to each state with trying to accommodate more of a popular vote election?

What are your ideas? I want to read them.

cdtm
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

snowdragon
Keep it. I already posted about this in another thread discussing what the popular vote means realistically in a large diverse nation vs ec.

dadudemon
I'm between keeping it as is and modifying it to make the votes proportional.

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by cdtm
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

ares834
It seems pretty simple to me, go to straight popular vote.

DarthAnt66
thumb down Then the candidates would have to campaign in every state. It would be a mess.

Plus, in close elections, the popular vote can be swayed by voter fraud and miscounts.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by ares834
It seems pretty simple to me, go to straight popular vote.

CosmicComet
I'd like to see the stats if it was proportional votes.

Don't think there should be any decimals of course. Like if you only get 20% of a 3 EC vote state, you would get nothing as that's less than 1.

ares834
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
thumb down Then the candidates would have to campaign in every state. It would be a mess.

I fail to see how that's a problem.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Plus, in close elections, the popular vote can be swayed by voter fraud and miscounts.

And it can do so in elections nowdays. Heck, it has an even bigger impact with most states going winner takes all.

BackFire
Yeah I don't really see how candidates campaigning in more states, and people in non swing states feeling more like their votes will matter, and maybe getting more interaction from the candidates is necessarily a bad thing.

I'd be fine with just the popular vote, really. But a proportional electoral college would also be an improvement, imo.

dadudemon
Originally posted by CosmicComet
I'd like to see the stats if it was proportional votes.

Don't think there should be any decimals of course. Like if you only get 20% of a 3 EC vote state, you would get nothing as that's less than 1.


Correct. I will do that math, tomorrow, when I'm at work. To be clearer, I'll work up a "proportional vote" based on the popular voting for each state and distribute the votes that way to see what the outcome would be.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by DarthAnt66 thumb down Then the candidates would have to campaign in every state. It would be a mess.


That's a pretty lame reason, and I think you know it, lmao. So maybe they have to travel a little more?



That's more likely to happen in our current system.

There is essentially zero justification for the electoral college system as it exists. Its original purpose was to insulate the republic from the direct popular vote, but here the electors just vote for the popular vote winners anyway, so all it does is take the popular vote and break it into completely arbitrary winner-take-all districts just 'cause. You could say that the states represent different "interests" and you want to balance them, but it makes no sense to have a winner take all system where a state that's 50.5% for one candidate matters just as much for its electoral votes as a state that's 95% for it. It means that some voters literally wield hundreds of times the influence of others.

In a sensible system, Hillary Clinton, the winner of the actual American vote, would be president elect.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by DarthAnt66

I wonder why you would say that... is it maybe because the electoral college is the reason your candidate won?

ares834
And many people bitching about it is because it is the reason their candidate lost. It works both ways.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by ares834
And many people bitching about it is because it is the reason their candidate lost. It works both ways.

The difference is that the arguments against it actually make sense.

CosmicComet
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I wonder why you would say that... is it maybe because the electoral college is the reason your candidate won?

Lol...the narrative switch. The electoral college mapout is where Clinton was supposed to have the clearcut advantage going in.

Regardless, Trump was pretty handily winning the popular vote all night, and was winning it at the time he broke 270 and won overall.

NY and California are outliers to the rest of the states and are densely populated, and as DDM said if you eliminate the top 2 states for BOTH of them, Trump would still be handily winning the popular vote.

So no, the needy moral victory narrative of "The people wanted Hillary more!" is very misleading. Especially since he won 30 out of 50 states.

Oh, and you have to factor out 60,000 votes from Clinton's total, counting for 60,000 felons that were allowed to vote specifically for her in Virginia, which she ended up winning. That, and you have to account for any machines that may have mysteriously switched their vote from Trump to Clinton on the confirmation page---too many people have reported having this happen for it to be dismissed.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Lol...the narrative switch. The electoral college mapout is where Clinton was supposed to have the clearcut advantage going in.

Regardless, Trump was pretty handily winning the popular vote all night, and was winning it at the time he broke 270 and won overall.

NY and California are outliers to the rest of the states and are densely populated, and as DDM said if you eliminate the top 2 states for BOTH of them, Trump would still be handily winning the popular vote.

So no, the needy moral victory narrative of "The people wanted Hillary more!" is very misleading. Especially since he won 30 out of 50 states.

Oh, and you have to factor out 60,000 votes from Clinton's total, counting for 60,000 felons that were allowed to vote specifically for her in Virginia, which she ended up winning. That, and you have to account for any machines that may have mysteriously switched their vote from Trump to Clinton on the confirmation page---too many people have reported having this happen for it to be dismissed.
Oh, even if Clinton had won I'd still say the electoral college is dicked, because it is.

CosmicComet
If that is so, then fair play to you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by CosmicComet
NY and California are outliers to the rest of the states and are densely populated, and as DDM said if you eliminate the top 2 states for BOTH of them, Trump would still be handily winning the popular vote.

To be the most fair, I only eliminated the most extreme outliers from both sides:

http://i.imgur.com/8fGoyXa.png

NewGuy01
Modify.

|King Joker|
Yeah, I'm between modification or just straight abolition.

Lord Lucien
Get rid of it. Popular vote. And make Puerto Rico a state. And get off my lawn.

UCanShootMyNova
Originally posted by ares834
It seems pretty simple to me, go to straight popular vote.

UCanShootMyNova
Originally posted by cdtm
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Glad you agree we should fix it. thumb up

riv6672
Originally posted by dadudemon
What are your ideas? I want to read them.
One person, one vote let the chips fall where they may.

Not sure how old i was when i learned about the electoral system, but emotionally it was akin to being told there was no Santa.
Everything i'd believed about democracy and the way voting worked turned out to be a lie.
Granted i got over it pretty quick, but i still think its a crap system.

Surtur
I find this system old and not needed. However, I'm quite sure that if Clinton won the election, but lost the popular vote people would be PRAISING the electoral college.

So the hypocrisy is still quite funny.

Most people truly didn't give this system much thought until the unthinkable happened. What a disturbing lack of foresight.

Plus: funny!

Ziggystardust
I think it's safe to take off around a couple million, possibly more, votes from Clinton and add them to the Trump groupie list due to Soros machine 'irregularities' as well as all the illegals and felons who were registered to sway the electorate.

Surtur
It's still amusing to me because I know the same people denouncing this as archaic would be have huge hard on's for it if it ended up leading to a Clinton victory.

Sort of like they all loved the FBI until they dared to look at some new evidence. Then suddenly they were bad and in Trump's pocket.

If you guys want some real comedy gold read the Huffington Post article about them giving reasons why their polls were so so hilariously wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pollster-forecast-donald-trump-wrong_us_5823e1e5e4b0e80b02ceca15

Hilarious!

You know all the shit the media pulled ended up being worth it just to watch them losing their god damn minds over how wrong and how out of touch they are.

This all back fired spectacularly in everyone's face and THIS is why I said the butthurt over a Trump win would vastly exceed the butthurt over a Trump loss. It's not just about the loss, it's about just the sheer reality check so many had to deal with. I found Stephen Colbert's tears especially delicious.

Utrigita
Originally posted by ares834
It seems pretty simple to me, go to straight popular vote.

Ayelewis
Of course he didn't win. Hillary got more votes than Trump and therefore she's the legitimate President-elect.

Let's not quibble about the Electoral College folks. America stands for DEMOCRACY and that means that the individual with the most votes wins. Somebody running for governor or US senator gets the job if he or she gets the most votes in a state. We don't apportion votes on a regional basis such that voters in El Paso county (population about 900K) get one elector as do voters in next door Hudspeth county (population about 0).

Trump lost the popular vote and he should urge his electors to vote for Hillary, the legitimate next president. Hillary won, Trump lost, live with it.

kevdude
It should stay the same no matter what party wins. We are not a democracy, we are a federal republic, which is a million times better. Democracy's is mob rule and then they rob their treasury and then there goes the country.

America doesn't stand for DEMOCRACY! That is a huge lie by the main stream media and from the Democratic Party. We stand for people to decide their own future's. You are to be LEFT ALONE, and under a Democracy that will never happen! Its amazing in 2016 people get this mixed up. . smh

Edit: And NO it's not old, its a very up to date system, what is old is having a popular vote decide everything...

Ziggystardust
Uhh, I have a stinking feeling that guy was joking.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Ayelewis
Of course he didn't win. Hillary got more votes than Trump and therefore she's the legitimate President-elect.


Trump lost the popular vote and he should urge his electors to vote for Hillary, the legitimate next president. Hillary won, Trump lost, live with it.


I know right, that crazy constitution and electoral college.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Ayelewis
Of course he didn't win. Hillary got more votes than Trump and therefore she's the legitimate President-elect.

Let's not quibble about the Electoral College folks. America stands for DEMOCRACY and that means that the individual with the most votes wins. Somebody running for governor or US senator gets the job if he or she gets the most votes in a state. We don't apportion votes on a regional basis such that voters in El Paso county (population about 900K) get one elector as do voters in next door Hudspeth county (population about 0).

Trump lost the popular vote and he should urge his electors to vote for Hillary, the legitimate next president. Hillary won, Trump lost, live with it.

I suggest taking a civics class as you don't seem to understand quite a few things about the US.

dadudemon
Let's be real here, for a bit. This is what the election map really looked like (Red is Trump, Blue is Hillary for those who don't know):


http://i.imgur.com/nA6KuJE.jpg


Isn't this very telling? This is more like rural vs. city.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ayelewis
Of course he didn't win. Hillary got more votes than Trump and therefore she's the legitimate President-elect.

Let's not quibble about the Electoral College folks. America stands for DEMOCRACY and that means that the individual with the most votes wins. Somebody running for governor or US senator gets the job if he or she gets the most votes in a state. We don't apportion votes on a regional basis such that voters in El Paso county (population about 900K) get one elector as do voters in next door Hudspeth county (population about 0).

Trump lost the popular vote and he should urge his electors to vote for Hillary, the legitimate next president. Hillary won, Trump lost, live with it.

Because I know if Trump won the popular vote, but lost the election..you'd be saying Hilary should be urging people to vote for Trump, right?

dadudemon
Alright, dudes, here is the data with the Electoral Votes Proportionally Distributed. Sorry, Trump fans, Trump did not win enough votes in each state to edge out Hillary and specifically because of NY and CA, Hillary wins this alternative way of distribution. By the way, I tried it both ways: direct proportionally and one where each state has a clear winner (meaning, if they are nearly even, they don't get 2 EVs, each, the winner gets 3 and the loser gets 1). That way, there are not ties in each state. However, that did not change the final numbers, at all, so I stuck with my method of giving each state a clear winner. Here is the result:

http://i.imgur.com/GgF9b4G.png



The only way Trump wins this election is through the current system even though Hillary barely won the popular vote. Sorry, that's the way it is when you analyze the numbers.

Flyattractor
Well hell. Lets just get rid of the VOTING SYSTEM all together and just put the Leftist Nazi Overlords in charge.

Only way to make the Leftist Crybabies happy.

Cause if they can lose they will always be shitting their diapers over it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Only way to make the Leftist Crybabies happy.

Cause if they can lose they will always be shitting their diapers over it.

They are indeed entirely too mad about this.

Silent Master
So the only way Trump wins, is if we go by how Presidential elections actually work.

Now what?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Silent Master
So the only way Trump wins, is if we go by how Presidential elections actually work.

Now what?

Your post reads very familiar:

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only way Trump wins this election is through the current system even though Hillary barely won the popular vote. Sorry, that's the way it is when you analyze the numbers.


Edit - Based on the voting in this thread, seems a comfortable majority want a straight popular vote. I think the proportional system I just used is a better idea because I do not think it is fair to marginalize smaller states in a Federal Republic. The larger populist states should be marginalized by just a bit.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
I find this system old and not needed. However, I'm quite sure that if Clinton won the election, but lost the popular vote people would be PRAISING the electoral college.

So the hypocrisy is still quite funny.

Most people truly didn't give this system much thought until the unthinkable happened. What a disturbing lack of foresight.

Plus: funny!
Nah, I think Clinton's the lesser of two evils, but I always thought this system was dicked.

Silent Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your post reads very familiar:




Edit - Based on the voting in this thread, seems a comfortable majority want a straight popular vote. I think the proportional system I just used is a better idea because I do not think it is fair to marginalize smaller states in a Federal Republic. The larger populist states should be marginalized by just a bit.

They only want to change how Elections work because their person didn't win.

Robtard
Saying Clinton deserves the win is stupid, Trump won with the rules in place, that's juts that.

Having said that, going forward we should go with popular vote. Each citizen gets one vote; the candidate with the most votes wins. Easy.

Emperordmb
Neither of them "deserved" to win. Both of them should be in jail. When our political system gets us two candidates most people hate, you kinda know it's dicked.

Robtard
If you want to talk about government corruption, that's an entirely different conversation. But they both got there with the rules in place and they both won or lost with the rules in place.

Silent Master
Bernie Sanders might just disagree with you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Silent Master
They only want to change how Elections work because their person didn't win.


I agree.

Originally posted by Robtard
Saying Clinton deserves the win is stupid, Trump won with the rules in place, that's juts that.

Having said that, going forward we should go with popular vote. Each citizen gets one vote; the candidate with the most votes wins. Easy.

I disagree. I like my proposed system, the best. That still gives us the ability to give the smaller states a bit more of a say since we are a Federal Republic. This slightly marginalizes the more populous states, sure, but not too much and it still gives a bit more of a proportional voice to the smaller states.

I don't think we are geographically and populously (is this even a word?) small enough to justify a straight popular vote especially since we vary so much across the US in culture.

Emperordmb
Not everyone changes their paradigm on the fly to justify to themselves what they believe. If Clinton won because of the electoral college, I'd be happy Trump didn't win, but I'd still disapprove of the electoral college.

Robtard
Originally posted by Silent Master
Bernie Sanders might just disagree with you.

And he's likely correct, imo. But that's just more claims that can't be fully confirmed.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I like my proposed system, the best. That still gives us the ability to give the smaller states a bit more of a say since we are a Federal Republic. This slightly marginalizes the more populous states, sure, but not too much and it still gives a bit more of a proportional voice to the smaller states.

I don't think we are geographically and populously (***is this even a word?) small enough to justify a straight popular vote especially since we vary so much across the US in culture.

Didn't read it, jumped in on the page and didn't read back. No mal intent, just letting you know.

I don't see the problem, or maybe I just don't care. But one vote per citizen where no one's vote is more or less important seems fit to me.

***Dictionary says it's a word, adjective for "populous". It does look wrong though.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Silent Master
Bernie Sanders might just disagree with you. Robbie really didn't care about Bernie.

Flyattractor
Just a little RE-Edgumuhcation for everybody on how the Electoral Really works.

V6s7jB6-GoU

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah, I think Clinton's the lesser of two evils, but I always thought this system was dicked.

Maybe you would, but I'm guessing at least half these shitheads crying about this would be praising it if it netted their corrupt woman the win.

DarthAnt66
http://i.imgur.com/F17AFi7.jpg

ares834
Actually, according to Hamilton, the reason we have an electoral college is because the founding fathers thought the public was full of too many dumb asses to elect a good president and wanted to restrict it to the "elite". Land area has noting to do with it. thumb up

meep-meep
In my opinion, I can't really think of a better alternative to the electoral college with the sole exception of the popular vote. I know there was a reason that it was established but my knowledge stops there. Anyone feel free to educate me on the matter. I'd welcome it. I do think senate and house terms should be limited though. And, ridiculous lifetime checks received by them, to me, seems very unnecessary.

Edit: ares just answered my question. But the specific, technical reason would be appreciated.

NemeBro
Originally posted by ares834
Actually, according to Hamilton, the reason we have an electoral college is because the founding fathers thought the public was full of too many dumb asses to elect a good president and wanted to restrict it to the "elite". Land area has noting to do with it. thumb up It's a shame that that's not how the system actually works.

We don't let average Joe's run the Large Hadron Collider.

Why should we let them decide how to run the country?

I am not excluded from this. I doubt I have the necessary knowledge to adequately make decisions for our nation's future.

The ignorant should not have a voice.

Robtard
Originally posted by NemeBro
It's a shame that that's not how the system actually works.

We don't let average Joe's run the Large Hadron Collider.

Why should we let them decide how to run the country?

I am not excluded from this. I doubt I have the necessary knowledge to adequately make decisions for our nation's future.

The ignorant should not have a voice.

Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote?

snowdragon
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote?

That's just silly, maybe just proof of citizenship?

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, dudes, here is the data with the Electoral Votes Proportionally Distributed. Sorry, Trump fans, Trump did not win enough votes in each state to edge out Hillary and specifically because of NY and CA, Hillary wins this alternative way of distribution. By the way, I tried it both ways: direct proportionally and one where each state has a clear winner (meaning, if they are nearly even, they don't get 2 EVs, each, the winner gets 3 and the loser gets 1). That way, there are not ties in each state. However, that did not change the final numbers, at all, so I stuck with my method of giving each state a clear winner. Here is the result:

http://i.imgur.com/GgF9b4G.png



The only way Trump wins this election is through the current system even though Hillary barely won the popular vote. Sorry, that's the way it is when you analyze the numbers.

Wow, that's really interesting. It's insane how close this election truly was. The popular vote being seperated by only 200k is just incredible in a country this huge. It really does show how divided we are as a country.

NemeBro
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote? IQ no. I don't believe it should be restricted to those more naturally gifted than others, because that would devalue the efforts of those who acquired the necessary knowledge and reasoning through hard work and study (I'm not expert but as far as I know you can't hard work your way to a higher IQ).

Proficiency test? I've never heard that term used for anything but language, but essentially, yeah. There should be a baseline "you must be this informed to vote" that people should fall under.

According to an article ddm posted like a week ago the majority of voters are very uninformed on politics. Why should they be able to influence it then?

DarthAnt66
Originally posted by ares834
Actually, according to Hamilton, the reason we have an electoral college is because the founding fathers thought the public was full of too many dumb asses to elect a good president and wanted to restrict it to the "elite". Land area has noting to do with it. thumb up
There's various factors involved in it. It being a check on the people is an essential component, but land area has also become a relevant reason on why it's a thing.

NemeBro
Originally posted by snowdragon
That's just silly, maybe just proof of citizenship? Why is it silly?

Do you think it's silly that people can't walk into CERN and run tests with the particle accelerators?

Why should you not have to prove that you're qualified to vote?

ares834
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
There's various factors involved in it. It being a check on the people is an essential component, but land area has also become a relevant reason on why it's a thing.

Which I think is ridiculous. I see no reason why someone living in an rural area should have the vote count for more than someone in a city.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by dadudemon
Isn't this very telling? This is more like rural vs. city. Nailed it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote?

I agree that I wouldn't say necessarily an IQ test. But some kind of proficiency test wouldn't be a bad idea.

After all I had to prove to someone I knew what I was doing when it came to driving before I legally could.

I realize the response to this usually is "well driving is a privilege and voting is a right". But for me the question is..maybe one single uneducated person can't do any damage with a vote. But scores of them? Could, and I know pretty much every Hilary supporter agree's with that.

NemeBro
Originally posted by ares834
Which I think is ridiculous. I see no reason why someone living in an urban area should have the vote count for more than someone in a city. "Urban" means "of or relating to cities and the people who live in them" lol.

Did you mean rural?

ares834
Originally posted by NemeBro
"Urban" means "of or relating to cities and the people who live in them" lol.

Did you mean rural?

Yep. Jesus, was in a bit of a rush there. I meant to use both urban and rural.

Surtur
Originally posted by ares834
Yep. Jesus, was in a bit of a rush there. I meant to use both urban and rural.

I'll have you know Jesus was never in a rush to get anywhere. The guy was super chill.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
http://i.imgur.com/F17AFi7.jpg

That's an ungodly stupid argument. Why should we care about land are? If I go to Antarctica and live there for a while, should I receive more sway in the United Nations than Canada, France and the UK put together?

Surtur
Any reasons we might have had don't really apply anymore. It's not about why we have it, it's about why we kept it around for this long.

Ideally we'd go by popular vote and have a limit of 1 term. This means the president can concentrate the entire time on making the country a better place as opposed to potentially hesitating to take certain actions in order to assure they get elected a 2nd time.

dadudemon
Originally posted by NemeBro
Proficiency test? I've never heard that term used for anything but language, but essentially, yeah. There should be a baseline "you must be this informed to vote" that people should fall under.

I proposed such a test, before. It would test two things:

Your knowledge of how politics work in the US (a US Civics test, if you will).

Your knowledge of the current candidates and their positions.

If you can't pass both, you don't get a license to vote. And you'd have to retest every time you wanted to vote.



This would force candidates to have a platform before they could run...or at least we would have to require the candidates meet a minimum amount a "positions" so tests could be formed from them. And who would make the tests? I proposed that it would be political science professors but I do have a bias towards them since I studied that quite a bit in college and was exposed to both liberal and conservative political science professors. One of my friends suggested it be a mixture of professors and pundits from the political community...but I fear the injection of far too much political games if that happens.


I would never want trick questions on that test. ALWAYS straightforward answers on the test. And the questions and answers would be agreed to by the campaign people of each candidate...for the most part.


Originally posted by NemeBro
According to an article ddm posted like a week ago the majority of voters are very uninformed on politics. Why should they be able to influence it then?

This is a question that has been plaguing civilized humans for millennia. I am considered an "extremely well-informed" voter compared to the rest of the people out there. But I know for a fact that I am also EXTREMELY ignorant of many many things in politics which makes my relative label of "extremely well-informed" quite empty.

Personally, if I rated myself on whether or not I would get that license to vote in the system we are talking about, I'd give myself a 50-50 chance of passing the second test. no expression

Silent Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your knowledge of how politics work in the US (a US Civics test, if you will).


Then most of the people protesting wouldn't have been allowed to vote as they don't seem to understand the EC.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
I realize the response to this usually is "well driving is a privilege and voting is a right". But for me the question is..maybe one single uneducated person can't do any damage with a vote. But scores of them? Could, and I know pretty much every Hilary supporter agree's with that.


And this is the problem...tens of millions of ignorant voters go to the polls every election. And those ignorant voters were persuaded with PR machines from the candidates. So they aren't just ignorant, they are purposefully misinformed so now they are not just voting in ignorance, they are voting with false or misleading information which is worse than a purely ignorant vote.

That's scary as f*** to me and that's how the game has been played for a while.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's an ungodly stupid argument. Why should we care about land are? If I go to Antarctica and live there for a while, should I receive more sway in the United Nations than Canada, France and the UK put together?


Sure, if 37.3% of the UN population lives in Antarctica like they do in the US comparison we are talking about. 62.7 of the US lives in what the US Census Bureau calls "incorporated" areas (urban and suburban areas).

So, yeah, if 37.3% of all the population of all members of the UN were living in Antarctica, your sarcastic rhetoric would be met with a serious "yes, obviously they should be given more sway in the United Nations than Canada, France, and the UK put together."


You may want to rethink your sarcastic rhetoric. I think you are close to making a good point but just haven't set up a good metaphor for it, yet. No, I am not patronizing you: I am serious. It is because after you form a good piece of sarcastic rhetoric, I will steal it for arguments like this in the future to make my points even better.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Silent Master
Then most of the people protesting wouldn't have been allowed to vote as they don't seem to understand the EC.

Indeed. Which makes me quite happy. I obtained a very useless political science degree. Let me tell you...everyone is ignorant as f*** when it comes to political science and to how the US Government works EVEN IN THE DAMN DEGREE PROGRAM.


I can only imagine how many times Obama had to groan about the stupidity and ignorance when he was teaching about the US constitution before he was President.

Quincy
Even the president elect feels as though the electoral college is a mistake, and thinks it's righteous to protest when the winner of the popular vote loses the actual election.

Surtur
Well then Trump should at least try to get the ball rolling for changing this system.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Quincy
Even the president elect feels as though the electoral college is a mistake, and thinks it's righteous to protest when the winner of the popular vote loses the actual election.

you're thinking of 2012 trump.
2016 trump is totally cool with it.

Quincy
Originally posted by Surtur
Well then Trump should at least try to get the ball rolling for changing this system.

Doubtful he'll even comment on it.

Surtur
Well if not Trump then I hope people remember this and whoever ends up in the White House after Trump decides to abolish this system.

I especially hate that with this point system we are just essentially saying to some states "well, you don't really matter as much as some of these other states".

Has anyone ever made a serious attempt to get rid of this stupid system? I suppose that is another silver lining to Trump's victory. I'm guessing that this has never been a major focus because it's rare that you win the popular vote, but lose the election. It's not something you normally have to worry about, but now we've had it happen twice in less than 2 decades. So hopefully this will shine enough light on the archaic system to eventually get rid of it.

Newjak
I think at the least no state should be winner take all. Of course when you look at Facebook now i consistently see my more conservative friends posting on why the Electoral College needs to remain the same.

Astner
Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's an ungodly stupid argument. Why should we care about land are? If I go to Antarctica and live there for a while, should I receive more sway in the United Nations than Canada, France and the UK put together?
I'd think because the winning political platform would be a short-term strategy that would cater to the needs of the more populated urban areas at the expense of the rural areas. Which would lead to the destruction of your nation's agriculture and industries followed by an economic collapse.

As much as I dislike Trump the popular vote would be a liability for the United States in the long run.

Surtur
Originally posted by Newjak
I think at the least no state should be winner take all. Of course when you look at Facebook now i consistently see my more conservative friends posting on why the Electoral College needs to remain the same.

Do you think some of the same people who are bashing the college would be holding it up as a shining example of a great idea if it had prevented Trump from ascending to the White House even if he was the one who got the popular vote?

So I mean, are some truly bugged by this system or..just because the system didn't work in their favor?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.