New Bill to eliminate the Electoral College

[blackangst1]

Also. These cries of "the popular vote lost to the electoral vote" isnt the real issue (aside from the fact most people calling for this dont understand the difference between a democracy and a republic), but rather liberals KNOW with a popular vote only, it will assure a steady election of liberal candidates. The largest 20-25 cities would decide election outcomes, as most of the largest US citites lean left. Nevermind the votes of suburbs and smaller cities wont mean a thing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

There is a problem, within 16 years two candidates won the Presidency without majority support of the voters.
That’s a problem in my book.

I have a problem that when I lose a soccer game, I didn’t earn three points for every time I sent the ball flying over the crossbar.

The Democrats had an opportunity to make the case for electoral college reform after Obama won.

The article linked by @blackangst1 makes a good case for why eliminating the electoral college is a bad idea.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I have a problem that when I lose a soccer game, I didn’t earn three points for every time I sent the ball flying over the crossbar.

The Democrats had an opportunity to make the case for electoral college reform after Obama won.

The article linked by @blackangst1 makes a good case for why eliminating the electoral college is a bad idea.

I have a problem with you winning the soccer game with two goals when I have three goals

 

[Sunburn74]

Also. These cries of "the popular vote lost to the electoral vote" isnt the real issue (aside from the fact most people calling for this dont understand the difference between a democracy and a republic), but rather liberals KNOW with a popular vote only, it will assure a steady election of liberal candidates. The largest 20-25 cities would decide election outcomes, as most of the largest US citites lean left. Nevermind the votes of suburbs and smaller cities wont mean a thing.

Why does this matter? You're basically saying the reason not to go to a popular vote is because you'd not get the result you want. Also its not even a credible argument that suburbs and cities won't mean a thing because actually each individual person would have the same voting power. In fact, we actually don't know what result we'd get because the current system actually suppresses many people from even coming out to vote on both sides (in example, hillary clinton won the popular vote by about 3.5 million but do you really think only less than 3.5 million republicans didn't vote? Its far more likely that more than 3.5 million republicans cumulatively were discouraged from even turning out in certain states. Finally is it possible that the EC system actually encourages cities to persistently lean left and rural areas to persistently lean right because it basically forces politicians to campaign and target essentially territories of exclusivity)

You're not arguing that its unfair or that its rigged or that the desires of the general US won't be reflected by the outcome but are simply arguing we shouldn't do it because you won't like the result.

It's perfectly fair and perfectly democratic to go to a popular vote system. If you can show me a company or a school or some other private industry that uses an electoral college, I'd like to hear about how that's working out. But remember the EC wasn't put in place for representation purposes but rather to serve as a way to block the will of the people in case the people went crazy (and it grossly failed us this last election).

 

[Texashiker]

Otherwise how the hell have you been man, haven’t seen you around here in a long time.

Conservatives are in the super minority around here. In a round about way I was informed my opinion was not wanted or welcome.

Even though I feel individual rights trump the rights of the majority, it does not seem to matter. When it comes to giving up liberties, conservatives are the ones who should sacrifice.

Just like this electoral college issue. Major cities on the east and west coast should not decide what is best for the heartland. The electoral college was put in place, in part, so the majority does not get to make all the decisions.

The founding fathers did not want a democracy, as it is nothing more than mob rules. The US is a limited republic and should stay that way.

Hillarys campaign was ran on lies, emotions, and buzzwords, such as equal pay for women.

We already have a federal equal pay law on the books, and it is being used. But to the uneducated Hillary saying "equal pay for women" makes it sound like the issue has not already been addressed. This is an emotional appeal rather than logical.

The electoral college is one defense from the masses of uneducated and gullible voters.

 

[Sunburn74]

Conservatives are in the super minority around here. In a round about way I was informed my opinion was not wanted or welcome.

Even though I feel individual rights trump the rights of the majority, it does not seem to matter. When it comes to giving up liberties, conservatives are the ones who should sacrifice.

Just like this electoral college issue. Major cities on the east and west coast should not decide what is best for the heartland. The electoral college was put in place, in part, so the majority does not get to make all the decisions.

The founding fathers did not want a democracy, as it is nothing more than mob rules. The US is a limited republic and should stay that way.

Hillarys campaign was ran on lies, emotions, and buzzwords, such as equal pay for women.

We already have a federal equal pay law on the books, and it is being used. But to the uneducated Hillary saying "equal pay for women" makes it sound like the issue has not already been addressed. This is an emotional appeal rather than logical.

The electoral college is one defense from the masses of uneducated and gullible voters.

I would counter that the heartland shouldn't be the one deciding whats best for the east or the west coast. On its face it's no more or less a valid argument than yours. At the end of the day someone has to make the decision. How the decision is made shouldn't be determined by the results. Otherwise just pick the result you want and rig the whole thing towards it.

BTW, the founding fathers also only wanted white, land-owning males to vote. Let's take a chill pill on their all knowing wisdom here in terms of looking out for our current best interests.

 

[Texashiker]

The founding fathers also only wanted white, land-owning males to vote.

There was a reason for that, and it was not racism or sexism.

 

[Sunburn74]

There was a reason for that, and it was not racism or sexism.

All I'm saying is they were clearly wrong. And it clearly was racism and sexism. Some of those guys owned (and abused) slaves.

 

[blackangst1]

Why does this matter? You're basically saying the reason not to go to a popular vote is because you'd not get the result you want. Also its not even a credible argument that suburbs and cities won't mean a thing because actually each individual person would have the same voting power. In fact, we actually don't know what result we'd get because the current system actually suppresses many people from even coming out to vote on both sides (in example, hillary clinton won the popular vote by about 3.5 million but do you really think only less than 3.5 million republicans didn't vote? you don't think more than 3.5 million republicans cumulatively were discouraged from even turning out in certain states?)

You're not arguing that its unfair or that its rigged or that the desires of the general US won't be reflected by the outcome but are simply arguing we shouldn't do it because you won't like the result.

It's perfectly fair and perfectly democratic to go to a popular vote system. If you can show me a company or a school or some other private industry that uses an electoral college, I'd like to hear about how that's working out. But remember the EC wasn't put in place for representation purposes but rather to serve as a way to block the will of the people in case the people went crazy (and it grossly failed us this last election).

If you dont see why this matters, youre pretty simple. Secondly, youre assuming something about me by saying I wont get the election results I want. Ive participated in 9 presidentail elections. 4 I voted D 5 I voted R.

 

[Texashiker]

All I'm saying is they were clearly wrong. And it clearly was racism and sexism. Some of those guys owned (and abused) slaves.

No, the founding fathers were not wrong.

Allowing only land owners to vote was a way to protect ones property, and encouraged people to own property.

Take an uneducated population, (such as people on welfare) and tell them if they approve a property tax hike we can fund better schools. What do you think is going to happen? Raising taxes is not going to affect them, or so they think.

Look up the Milgram experiment. Do you think the person pushing the shock button would shock himself? Of course not. One reason why the subject was shocked, or so the person thought, was because it did not affect him.

Then there is the issue of uneducated voters, such as those who voted for hillary. Then there are the emotional voters who vote on emotion rather than logic.

Why do you think so many poor people vote democrat? Because democrats promise to raise taxes and give out more free stuff.

What do you think is going to happen when masses of people who own nothing can vote to take property from others?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I have a problem with you winning the soccer game with two goals when I have three goals

But the rules allow for that outcome, intentionally so by the people who invented the game, and its disengenuous to only complain about the rules for the games when you lose.

 

[Texashiker]

I have a problem with you winning the soccer game with two goals when I have three goals

Not entirely accurate.

You have three goals, but several million more players than I do.

Electoral college balances the playing field.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Removing the EC system would be huge and give every voter, no matter what their lean, a say in the election of the most powerful person on Earth.

This isnt a conservative or liberal thing, and even most current elections don't stray too far from a 50/50 split, but politicians would have to move toward more broadly accepted positions, perhaps even during the primary (if the parties ever got around to primary reform internally as well).

The senators seats used to be chosen by the state legislature before going "full democracy" sometime in the early 20th/late 19th century. I don't see a return to that system, nor a system where the house gets packed with 1000's of reps based on increased population: asside from logistically getting anything done in that kind of a body, I don't see Congress people basically voting to dilute their own power (ironic given this topic and conversation).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

But the rules allow for that outcome, intentionally so by the people who invented the game, and its disengenuous to only complain about the rules for the games when you lose.

I’ve been pro direct vote as in one vote = one vote for all since about 1988.
I have no shame regarding the last two non majority Presidents.
We (Americans) invented the game and are fully capable of modifying the rules.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Not entirely accurate.

You have three goals, but several million more players than I do.

Electoral college balances the playing field.

Senate already balances the playing field. There is no difference between saying 10s of thousands of people mid America get to decide whom is President than me saying the two coasts should carry more weight in the decision.
There is no good reason why my vote in a moderately populated state should count less toward who is elected than someone in a sparsely populated state. Zero reason.

 

[Commodus]

Then there is the issue of uneducated voters, such as those who voted for hillary. Then there are the emotional voters who vote on emotion rather than logic.

Why do you think so many poor people vote democrat? Because democrats promise to raise taxes and give out more free stuff.

Wanted to single out these two points for ridicule. They're objectively false.

To start, exit poll data from 2016 shows that a person's lack of education actually dictated just the opposite of what you claim. If you were an uneducated white person, you were more likely to vote for Trump; if you were an educated white person or a minority of any education level, the level of Trump support dropped dramatically. (Slightly more educated white people still voted for Trump, showing that race still played a factor.)

And on the other point, two things. First, while exit poll data shows that more people making under $50K did vote for Clinton than Trump, the gap wasn't cavernous (53% versus 41%). Moreover, it doesn't tell the whole story. If you're making under $50K, that doesn't mean you're poor or uneducated; you may be a student or a recent grad with an entry-level job. Given that people under 30 were far more likely to vote for Clinton than Trump, it's reasonable to presume that many of those lower-income voters were young, not necessarily poor.

Also, it's rather ironic that you're complaining about voting based on emotion when you support a President who campaigned primarily on fear, hatred and mindless jingoism. You want leadership based on logic and reason? You're much more likely to get that out of the Democrat candidate in 2020 than Trump.

 

[Texashiker]

If you were an uneducated white person, you were more likely to vote for Trump; if you were an educated white person or a minority of any education level, the level of Trump support dropped dramatically. (Slightly more educated white people still voted for Trump, showing that race still played a factor.)

Let's clarify your post - White people who work blue collar jobs were more likely to vote for Trump than Hillary.

Of course race and sex played a factor in people voting for hillary.

Emotional voters and people who want "free stuff" typically voted for hillary.

People who work blue collar jobs typically voted for Trump.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is nothing wrong with the electoral system. The easiest fix would be for all the states to eliminate the winner takes all system, because the states imposed that limitation upon themselves. I don’t see CA or TX or NY changing that any time soon.

It still violates the principle of one man one vote. The whole thing is weighted heavily in favor of voters in low population states. A candidate could still lose the popular vote & win the election.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It still violates the principle of one man one vote. The whole thing is weighted heavily in favor of voters in low population states. A candidate could still lose the popular vote & win the election.

The Founding Fathers architected that as a feature not a bug.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Founding Fathers architected that as a feature not a bug.

They intended electors to exercise free will & good judgement in their choice should the occasion demand it, which didn't happen-

 

[ElFenix]

Also. These cries of "the popular vote lost to the electoral vote" isnt the real issue (aside from the fact most people calling for this dont understand the difference between a democracy and a republic),

and based on your usage here, you're not one of the people who understands that difference.

but rather liberals KNOW with a popular vote only, it will assure a steady election of liberal candidates. The largest 20-25 cities would decide election outcomes, as most of the largest US citites lean left. Nevermind the votes of suburbs and smaller cities wont mean a thing.

i love how you use cities as if they're some sort of Other rather than a concentration of united states citizens.

Do you really think "majority" should rule at all times?

I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking an honest question. Keep in mind - do you think people in a hipster city should be deciding things like regulations for farming or energy? These are things that the majority of voters have no real knowledge of - hence why having representation at the local level makes sense.

why would congress start appointing inner city hipsters to the farm committee?

 

[96Firebird]

96 posts in, and I've yet to read an explanation on why my single vote should count for less than another person's single vote.

 

[ElFenix]

96 posts in, and I've yet to read an explanation on why my single vote should count for less than another person's single vote.

well, you see, the founding fathers wanted it that way, and we all know the constitution was perfect in every single way and has never been amended nor any part of it help cause the country to rip itself apart about 80 years later.

 

[IronWing]

96 posts in, and I've yet to read an explanation on why my single vote should count for less than another person's single vote.

Simply put, people who live in more populated states are less real Americans than the people living in the "heartland". Just ask the heartland dwellers and they'll explain it to you. Small town people are better people, they just are.

Historically, it was a concession to the slave states to coax them into the Union. It would have been best if we had jettisoned the EC after the Civil War.

 

[Commodus]

Let's clarify your post - White people who work blue collar jobs were more likely to vote for Trump than Hillary.

Of course race and sex played a factor in people voting for hillary.

Emotional voters and people who want "free stuff" typically voted for hillary.

People who work blue collar jobs typically voted for Trump.

Do you have evidence they worked blue collar jobs? The exit poll info isn't that specific.

Also, doubling down on your lie about emotion-based voting doesn't make it any less of a lie. "Make America Great Again" and red caps are emotion-driven voting. Voting for someone completely inexperienced in politics and whose main credentials are his inheritance, his hotels and a TV show? That's emotion-driven voting, too.

Clinton you could vote for based on genuine experience and thoroughly-considered policies; one of Trump's biggest policy proposals during the campaign, banning all Muslim immigration, was a clear constitutional violation. Trump is all surface and no substance to this day.