Should the US abolish the Electoral College?

Mordo · November 22, 2016, 01:13:39 PM

Isn't the whole point to prevent sprawling cities like New York and LA from swinging every election in their favour?

Seems pretty reasonable IMO.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:13:50 PM

Absolutely not, people are fucking uneducated if they think we're a direct democracy.

The founding fathers looked back at history and knew that direct democracies never work, they implode on themselves. Direct democracy is two wolves and a single sheep democratically deciding on what's for dinner, we all know that's not a fair choice. The electoral college ensures that the views of the minority choice are balanced with the majority. Without it, everyone who doesn't live in the current big states or swing states are basically told to fuck off.

Turkey · November 22, 2016, 01:14:06 PM

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:14:23 PM

1 person, 1 vote. I've heard all the arguments for the EC, but pretty much none of them stand to reason.

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:13:39 PM

Isn't the whole point to prevent sprawling cities like New York and LA from swinging every election in their favour?

Seems pretty reasonable IMO.

Yeah, now we have fuckhead rural counties swinging the elections in their favor. Brilliant.

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:16:58 PM

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:13:50 PM

Without it, everyone who doesn't live in the current big states or swing states are basically told to fuck off.

Can you come up with a logical reason why they shouldn't be told to fuck off?

Why shouldn't the most populous areas hold more sway?

ban me · November 22, 2016, 01:18:04 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

PSU · November 22, 2016, 01:18:04 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:16:58 PM

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:13:50 PM
Without it, everyone who doesn't live in the current big states or swing states are basically told to fuck off.
Can you come up with a logical reason why they shouldn't be told to fuck off?

Why shouldn't the most populous areas hold more sway?

They do. Thats why California has 55 votes.

Mordo · November 22, 2016, 01:19:19 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:15:28 PM

Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:13:39 PM
Isn't the whole point to prevent sprawling cities like New York and LA from swinging every election in their favour?

Seems pretty reasonable IMO.
Yeah, now we have fuckhead rural counties swinging the elections in their favor. Brilliant.

"electoral college is bad because it didn't turn out how i wanted it to a bloo bloo!!1one"

Fuck off. You'd be defending the electoral college until your dying breath if Hillary won and you know it.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:21:10 PM

Because while we're not a direct democracy we're still a democracy and they have just as much of a say as the big states. And what PSU said, the bigger states do have more sway which is why they get bigger EC votes. But the EC is designed so that the winner has to appeal to a balance of everybody, not just the most populous areas. Because they shouldn't dictate the entirety of the country. Policies that work in Manhattan doesn't necessarily work in some rural town in Nevada, but that's exactly what will happen if only big states get a say.

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:16:58 PM

Can you come up with a logical reason why they shouldn't be told to fuck off?

Why shouldn't the most populous areas hold more sway?

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:21:49 PM

Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:19:19 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:13:39 PM
Isn't the whole point to prevent sprawling cities like New York and LA from swinging every election in their favour?

Seems pretty reasonable IMO.
Yeah, now we have fuckhead rural counties swinging the elections in their favor. Brilliant.
"electoral college is bad because it didn't turn out how i wanted it to a bloo bloo!!1one"

Fuck off. You'd be defending the electoral college until your dying breath if Hillary won and you know it.

No, I absolutely fucking wouldn't. I've hated the electoral college since the day I learned about it.

ban me · November 22, 2016, 01:22:34 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:23:23 PM

Also everyone is losing their shit about the EC this year as if this has never happened before, it's happened four times beforehand and one time in all our lifetimes (the 2000 election). It happened in 1888, 1876, and 1824 and the only election where there was reports of complaints (before 2000) was 1824, but that was because legitimate corruption occurred during that election.

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:24:44 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on November 22, 2016, 01:18:04 PM

We all love to bitch about it when it doesn't work in our favor

Had Hillary won by EC and Trump won the popular vote, I'd stand on my principles and be just as indignant over the system. I won't tell you that I'd be livid, because Trump deserves to be raped with a 10 foot pole, but I'd still call bullshit.

Quote

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

It's broke.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:25:20 PM

Explain, what about it is broke?

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:24:44 PM

It's broke.

Luciana · November 22, 2016, 01:26:51 PM

I would ask why do we only have the electoral college for president, but on all other levels, it is 1 person and 1 vote? Because it's contained to that singular state?

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:27:34 PM

Correct, it's a check/balances on the federal level.

Quote from: Luciana on November 22, 2016, 01:26:51 PM

I would ask why do we only have the electoral college for president, but on all other levels, it is 1 person and 1 vote? Because it's contained to that singular state?

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:28:53 PM

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:21:10 PM

Because they shouldn't dictate the entirety of the country.

Why the fuck not, though? That's what I'm asking you.

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:25:20 PM

Explain, what about it is broke?

The fact that a republican vote in California means nothing, and a democratic vote in Texas means nothing.

The fact that not all votes count as much as each other.

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:23:23 PM

Also everyone is losing their shit about the EC this year as if this has never happened before, it's happened four times beforehand and one time in all our lifetimes (the 2000 election).

Everyone lost their shit over the 2000 election too.

Luciana · November 22, 2016, 01:30:56 PM

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:23:23 PM

Also everyone is losing their shit about the EC this year as if this has never happened before, it's happened four times beforehand and one time in all our lifetimes (the 2000 election). It happened in 1888, 1876, and 1824 and the only election where there was reports of complaints (before 2000) was 1824, but that was because legitimate corruption occurred during that election.

I imagine we'll see more of it as our country gets more divided.

Mordo · November 22, 2016, 01:32:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:21:49 PM

Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:13:39 PM
Isn't the whole point to prevent sprawling cities like New York and LA from swinging every election in their favour?

Seems pretty reasonable IMO.
Yeah, now we have fuckhead rural counties swinging the elections in their favor. Brilliant.
"electoral college is bad because it didn't turn out how i wanted it to a bloo bloo!!1one"

Fuck off. You'd be defending the electoral college until your dying breath if Hillary won and you know it.
No, I absolutely fucking wouldn't. I've hated the electoral college since the day I learned about it.

Explain to us how clustered urbanites dictating how the country should be run every election is more viable than a proportional representation of people's voting behaviour.

I mean, it's not as if every state has an equal amount of electoral votes. Why do you think California has the highest amount? For the shits and giggles?

Luciana · November 22, 2016, 01:33:16 PM

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:27:34 PM

Correct, it's a check/balances on the federal level.

Quote from: Luciana on November 22, 2016, 01:26:51 PM
I would ask why do we only have the electoral college for president, but on all other levels, it is 1 person and 1 vote? Because it's contained to that singular state?

Fair enough. Founding fathers must have had headaches coming up with all this crap during the constitutional convention. It's all insanely well thought out.

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:34:40 PM

Quote from: REMOVE NARCOS on November 22, 2016, 01:32:18 PM

Explain to us how clustered urbanites dictating how the country should be run every election is more viable than a proportional representation of people's voting behaviour.

The way I see it, it's simply the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the fewer. It's not terribly complicated.

Quote

I mean, it's not as if every state has an equal amount of electoral votes. Why do you think California has the highest amount? For the shits and giggles?

The numbers barely matter when it's a winner-take-all situation.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:37:49 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:28:53 PM

Why the fuck not, though? That's what I'm asking you.

Because their preferred policies and laws/way of life doesn't mix with the policies and ways of life in other locations.

Quote

The fact that a republican vote in California means nothing, and a democratic vote in Texas means nothing.

The fact that not all votes count as much as each other.

I will admit that's a reasonable flaw that's been brought up, but keep in mind the EC wasn't always winner take all, and some states still don't have a winner take all system (Maine for example is split this year). Also Texas is a pretty bad example since it swung blue in 08 and 12. In that regard that's the direct part of the direct democracy (hence why the founding fathers did not have it originally as a winner take all system).

Quote

Everyone lost their shit over the 2000 election too.

For the wrong reasons, everyone mostly believes FL caused the election. Well kind of, it was also because Bush was able to flip a die hard blue state (NH).

And the fact that is swing states are constantly changing. CF was never considered a swing state until 80s (1988 I believe?), same with TX. We even see this in 2016 with PA going red. With the states constantly changing, the candidate has to keep focusing on the country as a whole instead of just what they believe might get them the win.

Mordo · November 22, 2016, 01:43:32 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:34:40 PM

The way I see it, it's simply the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the fewer. It's not terribly complicated.

But why though? That just means populous cities get more political autonomy over smaller counties.

That's not even representational democracy at that point. Just mob mentality. Direct democracy is trash and I think you're (presumably) reasonable enough to understand this.

Verbatim · November 22, 2016, 01:45:40 PM

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:37:49 PM

Because their preferred policies and laws/way of life doesn't mix with the policies and ways of life in other locations.

Isn't that what federalism is for? Because I'm pretty sure that's what federalism is for.

Quote

I will admit that's a reasonable flaw that's been brought up, but keep in mind the EC wasn't always winner take all, and some states still don't have a winner take all system (Maine for example is split this year).

Well see, that's even more fucked up. Why are some states able to be split, but not all of them? If every state were able to split their ballot, we'd have some very different results.

Quote

Also Texas is a pretty bad example since it swung blue in 08 and 12.

We also had a choice between two carbon copy republicans in 2012.

2008 has an asterisk, because everyone was scared of McCain dying and Sarah Palin assuming office, and everyone was super excited over the prospect of having our first black president. McPalin's entire campaign was a complete joke.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:47:39 PM

What was even more surprising was how they were able to make this existing body of government in such a short amount of time (literally only five months) and with all the opposition against it.

Quote from: Luciana on November 22, 2016, 01:33:16 PM

Fair enough. Founding fathers must have had headaches coming up with all this crap during the constitutional convention. It's all insanely well thought out.

Deleted · November 22, 2016, 01:50:38 PM

Verb is waifu material

DAS B00T x2 · November 22, 2016, 01:53:41 PM

Other than an amendment binding electors to their state's choice by law, I don't think anything needs to happen.

Quote from: Luciana on November 22, 2016, 01:26:51 PM

I would ask why do we only have the electoral college for president, but on all other levels, it is 1 person and 1 vote? Because it's contained to that singular state?

America works like a federation in that regard, with each state making its choice for the "leader" of the federal government. It's the only federal office that the whole nation votes on, so that's why it's the only time we see the EC.

Ian · November 22, 2016, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 22, 2016, 01:45:40 PM

Isn't that what federalism is for? Because I'm pretty sure that's what federalism is for.

Making a new federal law that actually affects everyone is not easy. While it is true the Congress approves thousands of laws a year, most of them have zero affect on our day to day lives. Hence when there is a major law that will affect us on a personal level (SOPA) they're generally canned.

Quote

Well see, that's even more fucked up. Why are some states able to be split, but not all of them? If every state were able to split their ballot, we'd have some very different results.

Because the individual states hold the right to manage the elections in their borders. It may be an election on a federal level but the federal government gave the process of overseeing the elections to the states. Each state has their own standard for ballots and voting (this was one of the major arguments in Bush Vs. Gore). This also includes how states manage their electoral votes; it's in their state constitutions.

Quote

We also had a choice between two carbon copy republicans during both of those elections.

The point is that TX was a die hard red state for many years straight (and before that, die hard blue). With states constantly changing, candidates have to focus their efforts on a diverse group of locations instead of just "Eh, I'll take New England, CF, and Fl and call it a day."

Poll

Should the US abolish the Electoral College?

Should the US abolish the Electoral College?