NYTimes: Fix the Electoral College or Scrap It
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Land masses make up the states and states form the country. Each state is an entity to itself and deserves one vote...
It's the United States of America, not the People's Republic of America. The people of each state vote for president, then come together to choose via the electoral college. No compelling reason to change
As long as we are going to be counting by groups of people instead of by individuas, we could have some really fun options.
By race...
Whites get 1 vote, blacks get 1 vote, browns get 1 vote, reds get 1 vote, yellows get 1 vote.
By religion...
Christians get 1 vote, Jews get 1 vote, Muslims get 1 vote, atheists get 1 vote, Zoroastrians get 1....
By gender...
Men get 1 vote, women get 1 vote.
By extended gender...
Straight men get 1 vote, straigh women get 1 vote, lesbians get 1 vote, trans women get 1 vote....
By IQ
By age group
By marriage state
....
OK, give it one vote.
Add that one vote to the state's popular vote.
Not instead of the state's popular vote.
There are no compelling reasons to keep the electoral college in its current form.
It treats voters differently based on the state in which they live.
No rational person can believe this is the best system for our nation.
There are no compelling reasons to keep it as it is currently. Rational, intelligent people understand the electoral college is not functioning as it was originally intended.
It’s long past time to change it or get rid of it.
It’s interesting that on other topics, cons bemoan what they perceive as group rights, but on this most fundamental right, they want to be a cog in the machine.
Cons don't want you to realize that the opposite of the feared "tyranny by the majority" is tyranny by some minority.
Most of us wouldn't say we have a tyranny. Nor are we particularly worried about it. But we are definitely ruled by a minority. And that should bother us.
It really is insane when you think about it.
Option A: Popular vote
Option B: Condense some 130,000,000 votes into 538 "electoral votes" which are awarded to each candidate based on where the voters live and then are awarded proportionately through an all or nothing system which then leads to 538 voters, who don't even need to have voted, to represent these 130,000,000 voters to cast the real votes towards the electoral college, which is how the winner is then selected.
Nor is this one of those "if it ain't broke don't fix it" situations. It's definitely broke.
Wait. Do the small states haved more power per vote or does the ec not protect small states rights? It can't be both.
In the electoral college you have a system in which theoretically a candidate could win 12 states, each by one vote, lose the others by potentially 10s of millions, and become President.
This is flawed beyond comprehension. No rational or intelligent person can possibly think the extant system is best.
Nobody has given any reasonable explanation why this system should remain in its current form.
This is flawed beyond comprehension. No rational or intelligent person can possibly think the extant system is best.
Nobody has given any reasonable explanation why this system should remain in its current form.
Screw “The Times” on this one. The Constitution trumps “The Times” on this one. The electoral college is here to stay.
Actually, it can be both - in the sense explained in the quote. Recheck the quoted passage.
But it is what the country is built upon. You can’t change foundations Without creating havoc. This is small potatoes.
No, it’s a huge issue, and I’ve been adamant about it for decades. There are no good reasons to keep the electoral college in its current form.
It promotes disunity in the country.
It weights votes differently based on residence.
Rational, intelligent people understand its flaws and incompatibility with today’s society.
Last edited:
I would disagree. By ending the electoral college, small population states have NO say in the policies of the nation.....Cali, Texas, Fla and NY will run the country...and frankly, most of us cannot afford that. You gotta give the Nevadas, Maines, Vermonts, Iowas and Wyomings a sense that they "count" too.
First, it's not the states that need representation, it's the people who need representation.
Second, the Senate gives small-population states a huge amount of power. They already have a disproportionate say in the policies of the nation.
Small states shouldn't have any disproportionate power. But they really shouldn't have it over 2 branches of government. The Senate gives them disproportionate power over legislation. The EC gives them disproportionate power over selecting the President. Both are bad ideas that have long outlived the rationale for their existence.
The electors were supposed to be able to vote for whomever they wanted. THAT was their power. That was why they were electors. There was never even supposed to BE a popular vote for president. And, the person who got the second-most electoral votes was VICE president. If you're not going to honor the original rules, then scrap it.
If you have no issue with a democracy at the state level, then stop bitching about it on a national lecvel.
If you have no issue with a democracy at the state level, then stop bitching about it on a national lecvel.
For the electoral college to make any sense, each state should have 1 vote, because it is the states electing the president and not the people. But the votes are weighted by population, which is an admission that the people should decide and not the states.
And you are wrong. All voters would be able to have a say in electing the president.
Right now Republicans have little to no say in California and New York. Democrats the same in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi...
Republicans have little say in Vermont. Democrats the same in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho.
Everyone’s vote counts, and counts the same no matter the state you live in.
As far as having a say in policies, that’s what the House and Senate are for. The president is supposed to represent the entire country. How can someone who receives a lesser amount of votes than another candidate truly represent the country?
Instead of % of the vote split, one could look at allocating EC electors by house district and then winner take all for the EC electors allocates by senate seat. So if House District 1 in a state voted for the democrat, they get the EC elector, but if the state voted for the Republican, they get the 2 senate EC electors.
Using current senator and representative party to assume the way the EC would be split...
So instead of Iowa sending 6 to Trump they would have split 3 & 3.
Indiana would be 2 for Hillary and 9 for Trump instead of 11 for Trump.
Illinois would be 6 for Trump and 15 for Hillary instead of 20 for Hillary.
Of course this is pretty simplistic as it is very possible that a district who sent a R house rep could have voted for a D President. Indiana has that on the north side of Indianapolis as they sent a R to the House, but tend to vote D for president.
Using current senator and representative party to assume the way the EC would be split...
So instead of Iowa sending 6 to Trump they would have split 3 & 3.
Indiana would be 2 for Hillary and 9 for Trump instead of 11 for Trump.
Illinois would be 6 for Trump and 15 for Hillary instead of 20 for Hillary.
Of course this is pretty simplistic as it is very possible that a district who sent a R house rep could have voted for a D President. Indiana has that on the north side of Indianapolis as they sent a R to the House, but tend to vote D for president.
It would make sense to me that the number of representatives should be equal to the number of EC votes. And those numbers come from the census...which means we should know who is here legally or not so eligible voters are counted as well.
People like me have been complaining about the process for decades, regardless of which party wins. That point is irrelevant to the argument.
It’s those who are unwilling to change a flawed system who are the whiny bitches.
You may think it's flawed, but the Framers set it up purposefully to have the very effect that you guys are bitching about. I guess it's working just fine.
Wrong. It’s flawed. Period. Full stop. The fact you can’t see it says a lot about you, none of it good.
You're right and I'm stupid. Very mature.
At least you acknowledge that I’m right.
There are no compelling reasons for keeping the system as it is. Voters do not have an equal voice in who becomes the president.
Why is this so difficult to see?
Nope, I’m right.
A system in which a candidate could win 12 states each by one vote could become president over another candidate who could win all the other states by 10s of millions.
Tell me exactly how that system is not flawed.
The FF also set up this government to work slowly and deliberately.....evolution as opposed to revolution. Checks/balances and oversight all contribute to slow moving government.
“slow” is not in many folks vocabulary nowadays. Just think back to the last national election cycle.
Explain exactly how a system in which 12 votes could potentially override the votes of 10s of millions of other votes is perfect in its current form.
That would entail being on Facebook. No thanks.
If she’s published elsewhere I’ll take a look.
