The Electoral College

[arewethereyet]

Electoral college - out
Popular vote - in

There's a reason the Electoral College is still a thing...that reason is that it is beneficial to the presidential nominee who can woo the states with the most Electoral votes.

The "winner takes all" set up is crap that most states follow. If a state has 5,000 voters and the split is 2,501 to 2,499 all the electoral votes for that state go to the candidate with 2,501. To be truly fair and reflective of the popular vote this should result in a nearly 50/50 split in Electoral College votes. Of course, that's just redundant. Count the popular vote and go with it.

[Brian37]

Fine, but you cannot tell me, prior open states have not become corrupt or fallen. 

Again, I am not arguing for or against the EC, my question is, what would you replace it with?

If you read my prior post, what I was pointing out is that ALL governments in the world are run by humans, thus will always be subject to manipulation and corruption. It still depends on those in an open society to value the system they live under. 

Germany was an open democracy post WW1 and still was manipulated and fell.

Even in a Parliamentary system like England, they have a Mini Me Trump running things.

Tell me, what is the job of the EC?

It seems to me that it's only job is to go against the voice of the people and elect whom it wants.

Hitler ran and won on the popular vote. The EC would act as a counter to that popular insanity. 
I wouldn't think in terms of either/or here.  
If it were always about going with what the voters wanted, then Mitt Romney was wrong for voting to impeach. 
I said in my prior post, I am torn on the EC.  But in a theoretical battle between say JFK and Reagan, I could live with an EC win/loss either way.
Trump isn't even 2000. Even today the Bushes hate Trump, none of them are supporting him today. 
I think the long term problem is gerrymandering, and the horrible SCOTUS "citizens united" decision. And 35 years of Fucks News hasn't helped.

[Foxaèr]

Hitler ran and won on the popular vote. The EC would act as a counter to that popular insanity. 
I wouldn't think in terms of either/or here.  
If it were always about going with what the voters wanted, then Mitt Romney was wrong for voting to impeach. 
I said in my prior post, I am torn on the EC.  But in a theoretical battle between say JFK and Reagan, I could live with an EC win/loss either way.
Trump isn't even 2000. Even today the Bushes hate Trump, none of them are supporting him today. 
I think the long term problem is gerrymandering, and the horrible SCOTUS "citizens united" decision. And 35 years of Fucks News hasn't helped.

The EC elected Hitler/Trump, so what was that again about it being a good thing?

Is there any instance where the EC elected a democrat against the popular vote? Think on that, bitch.

[Divinity]

The Electoral College: The only College Republicans like.

It's such a stupid fucking idea. "We need to give Rural States a voice!" THEY HAVE ONE. It's called the motherfucking Senate and congress. Now maybe stop letting them control the rest of the goddamn nation because otherwise they might have a hissy fit.

[Brian37]

The Electoral College:  The only College Republicans like.

It's such a stupid fucking idea.  "We need to give Rural States a voice!"  THEY HAVE ONE.  It's called the motherfucking Senate and congress.  Now maybe stop letting them control the rest of the goddamn nation because otherwise they might have a hissy fit.

I love you lady, I really do.

But for everyone reading this, not just you. I really have debated this issue long before I joined this forum. 

When one looks at human history, with other systems, we have seen that they are not perfect, and have even failed. 

My point isn't to argue for or against. I have said twice in this thread I am torn. 

It isn't enough to simply say, "get rid of it".  What would you suggest to replace it that you think would work foolproof?

My problem with this oversimplification is that we have seen other open democratic systems that don't have the EC fail in human history too.

Iran is ruled by popular vote. Despite what many in the west think, they do have elections too.

If I were to change the EC in any way, it would be that the numbers have to be far smaller to trigger an EC win than they are now.

I think both margins in 2000 and 2016 were far to high to trigger an EC win by the popular vote loser. 

But, again, if others here want to say "scrap it", what would you replace it with, and can you show me any other system that is immune to manipulation and corruption that is immune to falling?

I am not judging, I really am not.  I don't like these EC outcomes anymore than anyone else.  But I also don't want a pure vote either. Pure votes lead to Hitler and Stalin. Pure votes lead to Iran going from an open state to a theocracy.

Here are some images of Afghanistan in the 1960s.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Afghanis...10&dpr=1.5

I see the long term problem as being TRUMP and the GOP, not our constitution.

[Divinity]

The Electoral College:  The only College Republicans like.

It's such a stupid fucking idea.  "We need to give Rural States a voice!"  THEY HAVE ONE.  It's called the motherfucking Senate and congress.  Now maybe stop letting them control the rest of the goddamn nation because otherwise they might have a hissy fit.

I love you lady, I really do.

But for everyone reading this, not just you. I really have debated this issue long before I joined this forum. 

When one looks at human history, with other systems, we have seen that they are not perfect, and have even failed. 

My point isn't to argue for or against. I have said twice in this thread I am torn. 

It isn't enough to simply say, "get rid of it".  What would you suggest to replace it that you think would work foolproof?

My problem with this oversimplification is that we have seen other open democratic systems that don't have the EC fail in human history too.

Iran is ruled by popular vote. Despite what many in the west think, they do have elections too.

If I were to change the EC in any way, it would be that the numbers have to be far smaller to trigger an EC win than they are now.

I think both margins in 2000 and 2016 were far to high to trigger an EC win by the popular vote loser. 

But, again, if others here want to say "scrap it", what would you replace it with, and can you show me any other system that is immune to manipulation and corruption that is immune to falling?

I am not judging, I really am not.  I don't like these EC outcomes anymore than anyone else.  But I also don't want a pure vote either. Pure votes lead to Hitler and Stalin. Pure votes lead to Iran going from an open state to a theocracy.

Here are some images of Afghanistan in the 1960s.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Afghanis...10&dpr=1.5

I see the long term problem as being TRUMP and the GOP, not our constitution.

You do realize that if Germany had the Electoral College system that Hitler still would have won, right?  It's not like an electoral college would've stopped him.  It would've only theoretically stopped him, and you're counting on them doing the right thing.  And as we see from the 2016 election, they don't do the right thing.  The popular vote isn't the problem.  What gives rise to fascism isn't the popular vote.

[Brian37]

I love you lady, I really do.

But for everyone reading this, not just you. I really have debated this issue long before I joined this forum. 

When one looks at human history, with other systems, we have seen that they are not perfect, and have even failed. 

My point isn't to argue for or against. I have said twice in this thread I am torn. 

It isn't enough to simply say, "get rid of it".  What would you suggest to replace it that you think would work foolproof?

My problem with this oversimplification is that we have seen other open democratic systems that don't have the EC fail in human history too.

Iran is ruled by popular vote. Despite what many in the west think, they do have elections too.

If I were to change the EC in any way, it would be that the numbers have to be far smaller to trigger an EC win than they are now.

I think both margins in 2000 and 2016 were far to high to trigger an EC win by the popular vote loser. 

But, again, if others here want to say "scrap it", what would you replace it with, and can you show me any other system that is immune to manipulation and corruption that is immune to falling?

I am not judging, I really am not.  I don't like these EC outcomes anymore than anyone else.  But I also don't want a pure vote either. Pure votes lead to Hitler and Stalin. Pure votes lead to Iran going from an open state to a theocracy.

Here are some images of Afghanistan in the 1960s.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Afghanis...10&dpr=1.5

I see the long term problem as being TRUMP and the GOP, not our constitution.

You do realize that if Germany had the Electoral College system that Hitler still would have won, right?  It's not like an electoral college would've stopped him.  It would've only theoretically stopped him, and you're counting on them doing the right thing.  And as we see from the 2016 election, they don't do the right thing.  The popular vote isn't the problem.  What gives rise to fascism isn't the popular vote.

Again, as I said, I am torn. 

I can see your point of view. Trump is an example sure.

But again, if you are going to remove something, you have to have something to replace it with.


I doubt if Gore had lost the popular vote, but won the EC, or if Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC people who sport them would make the same argument.

Again, outside America's system of government, we have seen other examples in human history, where an open democratic state, without an EC has failed and become an authoritarian state.

I am against fascism, authoritarian states, and theocracies. I always will be. All I am asking is what do you replace the EC with?

[arewethereyet]

Hmmmm....what could we replace the Electoral College with????

Think, think, think...

Popular vote, maybe. The people (all the people) are supposed to decide the outcome of the election.

[DeistPaladin]

Tell me, what is the job of the EC?

It's ironic but the EC is there to prevent a popular vote election from electing a foreign-controlled, unqualified populist demagogue from winning. 

And so our founders created the very mechanic that actively led to their nightmare.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I don't think going with the popular vote makes sense, and I agree with Brian37 that many/most wouldn't have the same opinion if their guy got in and lost the popular vote. The US is a collection of states, not one state, so I don't think every vote should count the same. We don't go by popular vote here in Canada either, and the Conservatives actually won the popular vote last year, but lost the election.