How can we change the electoral college system?

Started by Teo Torriatte, November 10, 2016, 11:32:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Scott

No, but if we are TRULY interested in the issue of representation then there should have been regardless of who won in 2008. Seems this is just another venting of upsetness because the left lost the presidency. Are they not two separate issues?

MiraMirror

When more people in the United States, more citizens, have filed their votes and said with them "We want Hilary" (or anyone else, had someone else been running), and the electoral college matters more than that, it seems really broken.  If the people of the U.S. elect their president, and the gap we had proves who we voted for, but we end up with the opposite candidate, it feels like quite a lot of voters' voices are being flat-out ignored.  That's the problem with it.  If this had happened in reverse, I can at least say that I would've complained about that, too, even if my choice won because of it.
On's and Offs -  Please read before asking for a story <3

Scott

It's happened 5 times though, as recently as 2000, this isn't a new thing.

MiraMirror

Then it's an even bigger problem that was made much more evident in this previous election, and it brings home the point of this thread even more.  The system needs to change in a way that still allows smaller areas to be heard, but without the idea that a voter's choice doesn't matter in the first place.  A gap between candidates that damn large "not mattering" is wrong, regardless of which side it applies to.

The system is broken.
On's and Offs -  Please read before asking for a story <3

Oniya

Quote from: Scott on February 18, 2017, 08:33:21 PM
It's happened 5 times though, as recently as 2000, this isn't a new thing.

I seem to remember a bit of a kerfuffle back then as well - something about hanging pregnant chads and recounts and the Supreme Court getting involved...
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

MiraMirror

The thing that gets me annoyed is that because of the circumstances, when people complain about this, the opposing side basically says "Shut the hell up, quit bitching, and deal with it.", because they benefited from it.  In that regard, it feels like there's little point in debating/arguing about it, because it'll be seen as a "lol you lost" rant, which makes it not wrong at all and correct, which of course means that it shouldn't  be changed.

It's....blugh.
On's and Offs -  Please read before asking for a story <3

CopperLily

Quote from: Scott on February 18, 2017, 08:05:13 PM
No, but if we are TRULY interested in the issue of representation then there should have been regardless of who won in 2008. Seems this is just another venting of upsetness because the left lost the presidency. Are they not two separate issues?

I've thought the Electoral College was a bad idea since High School civics, and that was a fairly long time ago.

That two recent elections have both gone to the candidate without the popular vote just serves to heighten the issue. If getting support to change the EC when it's ignoring both the will of the people and its original intent is hard, it's basically impossible when your argument is "This is a bad idea and has some serious numeric precision flaws", so political capital is spent on other things.

Valerian

We still need something to replace it with, though, or at least a generally agreed upon way to improve the existing system, and that's where the problems really start.  There doesn't seem to be a better option available.  :/
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Trigon

Quote from: Valerian on February 21, 2017, 07:49:28 AM
We still need something to replace it with, though, or at least a generally agreed upon way to improve the existing system, and that's where the problems really start.  There doesn't seem to be a better option available.  :/

We don't have to keep the EC around actually, I don't see why we can't just go with the popular vote...

Though I suppose if the EC is to be kept around, one plausible model would be this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But we have to keep in mind that the EC is only part of the problem; there is still also the fact that we live in a defacto two-party system, among other things.

Jack Wolff

"Less educated"

What you're essentially saying in this entire thread is that you're mad that LA and NYC can't decide who gets to be president.

Clinton lost BOTH votes if you discount the millions of dead people and illegals who voted for her, the most corrupt, lying, cheating, murderous vile monster to ever run for that office in the history of this country.

Callie Del Noire

#60
Quote from: Jack Wolff on September 05, 2017, 12:10:37 AM
"Less educated"

What you're essentially saying in this entire thread is that you're mad that LA and NYC can't decide who gets to be president.

Clinton lost BOTH votes if you discount the millions of dead people and illegals who voted for her, the most corrupt, lying, cheating, murderous vile monster to ever run for that office in the history of this country.

Uh.. no. Election Corruption is a thing but NOT that bad a thing. Looking at most of the states accused of doing,by their own actions (such as hideous voter ID laws and such), that would gotten the GOP candidate the popular vote

You know I've said it before ..proportionally assigned delegates would radically change the map. President Obama got like 45% of Texas in 2008. Think about THAT for a moment. That is enough votes to make it a nonflyover state. Imagine how much of California would merit GOP attention? Or borderline states like NC & VA.  40-ish percent would make for a much different dynamic in a lot of states

Though I do agree that Clinton is a lying opportunistic shill, compare her to the man in the Oval Office please

Jack Wolff

I'm sorry, but it IS that bad of a thing and your "Facts" are simply not true here.


She IS worse than the man in the oval office, INFINITELY worse. She is a MURDERER among many other things.

You are blind.

Oniya

Unlike other forums, we do have a set of standards for our debate section.  Please provide sources for your claims.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jack Wolff

I can see that the politics section of this website is run by people with clear biases and slants. Meaning the "Standards" and such are set up by people with said clear biases and slants. I'm going to bow out from any further political discussions on this website, as it is clear to me that nothing is going to be accomplished from entering the lion's den.....Or Kitten's den rather.

Callie Del Noire

No, what we are saying is that if you make a claim, such as President Trump got the popular vote (which you did state) that you back it up with a linked source
for Example
FEC official count

Regina Minx

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on September 05, 2017, 12:20:23 AM
Uh.. no. Election Corruption is a thing but NOT that bad a thing...

I don't know about that. Twice in my lifetime it has overruled the proceedings of the democratic process and allowed the person who received fewer votes to win the election. I'm not a hundred percent what purpose it was originally intended to serve, but it looks on the surface to be a profoundly undemocratic institution.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Regina Minx on September 05, 2017, 09:57:37 AM
I don't know about that. Twice in my lifetime it has overruled the proceedings of the democratic process and allowed the person who received fewer votes to win the election. I'm not a hundred percent what purpose it was originally intended to serve, but it looks on the surface to be a profoundly undemocratic institution.

What I meant is that it is not as Hugely large as some claim.
Is popular vote vs EC votes disproportionately skewed? Absolutely. Jack was claiming millions of illegal votes were counted, where investigations have shown vanishingly small amounts of walk in voter fraud.

Whereas voter disenfranchisement and possible voter fraud behind the scenes such as box stuffing IS a problem that should be looked into

Sorry if I didn't clarify

Regina Minx

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on September 05, 2017, 10:09:42 AM
What I meant is that it is not as Hugely large as some claim.
Is popular vote vs EC votes disproportionately skewed? Absolutely. Jack was claiming millions of illegal votes were counted, where investigations have shown vanishingly small amounts of walk in voter fraud.

Whereas voter disenfranchisement and possible voter fraud behind the scenes such as box stuffing IS a problem that should be looked into

Sorry if I didn't clarify

No no, it's my fault. I clearly see now that you wrote "Election Corruption." While I was skimming the previous comment I quoted, I read that as "Electoral College." My remarks were geared at the college, not corruption.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Regina Minx on September 05, 2017, 10:21:12 AM
No no, it's my fault. I clearly see now that you wrote "Election Corruption." While I was skimming the previous comment I quoted, I read that as "Electoral College." My remarks were geared at the college, not corruption.

It's alright, the college is a weird thing, I've asked my brother about it (he's been a college delegate twice) and even he says it needs reform at least

Vekseid

#69
Quote from: Jack Wolff on September 05, 2017, 01:58:16 AM
I can see that the politics section of this website is run by people with clear biases and slants. Meaning the "Standards" and such are set up by people with said clear biases and slants. I'm going to bow out from any further political discussions on this website, as it is clear to me that nothing is going to be accomplished from entering the lion's den.....Or Kitten's den rather.

Funny how reality has a very powerful bias against people who live in an alternate one.

In any case, I'll help you keep your word. Would be a sin to keep tempting you with the reply button.

Edit: let's move on, please.

DelightfullyMAD

As far as I understand it, the purpose of the Electoral College is to actually try and moderate the popular vote, act as a form of check against pure popular rule.  I will admit flat out that I am not a Political Science major, so I am happy to be corrected on my understanding of this, but as far as I can glean, the role of the EC is to try and give less populated areas of the country at least some say in the direction of the country.  Different areas of the country tend to lean in different directions overwhelmingly due to the different environments they've created around themselves, and if our elections really did just come down to popular vote alone, we may as well not let anyone in the country vote outside of New York and California, as both of those states possess a massive amount of the population of the country.  Meanwhile, many of the mid states, being rather sparsely populated, would simply have to shut up and just follow along, as they simply do not have the numbers to be able to affect anything in the country in any meaningful degree.

I don't want to turn this into a conversation about the moral or ethical considerations regarding the system, but rather look into the basic mechanics and reasons behind it.  I don't necessarily agree with the EC as it is right now, but I also understand that simply having a pure majority rule would have it's own set of problems, one of which is my previously noted bit regarding how votes would be pretty much worthless outside of the major population centers.  And most of those population centers possess their own cultures and ideologies, which often makes those places vote in very similar ways.  In other words, on the surface, just going by a pure popular vote sounds fine, but it does raise concerns since those population centers tend to vote the same way, which would lead to a country in which is ruled over by just a few major cities while everyone else is just told to sit out.  From what I can determine, this is what the EC was originally created to balance, though one can argue as to just how effective it is in doing so.

And, of course, both sides of the political debate seem to have no problem with the EC when it votes in their favor, as I know both Democrats and Republicans that are perfectly fine with the EC when it goes the way they want, but then proceed to argue about how it needs to go away when it doesn't go the way they want.  It's very selective.

Personally, I am not against altering or improving the EC, but I think that getting rid of it would bring about some serious issues, not the least of which being that a large chunk of the country would pretty much have their votes rendered null and void in favor of the major population centers.  It's one of those things that I think we wouldn't really understand the full ramifications of it's removal until we actually remove it.

Again, not a Political Scientist, but this is my opinion on the EC and it's reason for being.
Number of RPs I am currently doing: 0 out of 5

Curious to know about me?  Here's my introduction thread: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=266266.msg13136350#new

My schedule occasionally gets kind of hectic, so if I suddenly disappear for a period of time, not to worry, I am likely just working like a dog.  I will be back.

HannibalBarca

#71
In a democracy, those with the franchise should be able to cast their vote, and they should have fair representation.  I take that to mean that majority rules in a democracy.  As well, if your voting bloc is smaller than another, you will lose in a fair election, dependent upon how many people in either bloc actually go out and vote.

I live in a county in California that is predominantly conservative.  Being incredibly liberal, I rarely see candidates of my preference win elections.  That's the way it is supposed to go.  Likewise, I don't think it should matter where the particular members of a voting bloc live--if they have the majority of votes, their candidate should win an election.  Anything else is dishing out disproportionate power to a minority voting bloc.  Claiming a particular group of voters will lose elections if things become more fair is not a winning argument.  Similar claims were made by pro-slavery groups in the Antebellum South.  If your ideals are less popular, you either need to argue more effectively for them, or change them.

The Constitution is a living document, empowered with an amendment process in order to upgrade it to meet the changing times of American society.  It has been changed before, even in regards to the election process of presidents, vice-presidents, and senators.  I don't see any problem with replacing the electoral college with a simple popular vote for the office of President, as well as instituting ranked-choice voting.  Since there is nothing in the Constitution that insists only two political parties are allowed, ranked-choice would reign in some of the imbalance of power with having only two viable choices as far as political parties.
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

DelightfullyMAD

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for anything other than a Democrat or a Republican to have any presence in the political sphere, regardless whether or not we abolish the EC.  Until they both collapse in on themselves (which may actually happen, given how things are going), they simply have too much presence on the political stage for any other group to stand much of a chance.

In regards to you being a liberal in a conservative county, that is basically how it works on the micro level, sure.  The EC however deals on a larger scale, and like I mentioned in my previous post, major population centers tend to have what almost amounts to their own isolated cultures.  It creates a disparity between the major urban centers and the rural areas, and while it's popular to look down upon those who live in the rural areas, the EC was concocted as a means of trying to balance out the growing urban centers with the rural ones.  I don't necessarily suggest it was the right way to go about it, but the system wasn't put in to screw the majority and give major power to the minority, rather just give the minority some actual say in matters that affect the entire country as a whole.  In essence, it was created for the purpose of trying to keep the majority from simply steamrolling over the minority and simply having mob rule.  Again, debate can be had as to how effective it is at that job, but I really don't think just switching to a pure popularity contest will be much better.  And again, neither side of politics seem to have much of a problem with the EC when it works in their favor, so before anything else, people need to at least agree that it shouldn't be taken into consideration regardless as to whether they win the EC vote or not.  Until then, it's just another tool that the winners will defend and the losers will whine about.  Come the next election, if the Democrat party wins the EC the next time around, I fully expect many Democrats to forget about how terrible the EC is while the Republicans whine about how unfair it is.
Number of RPs I am currently doing: 0 out of 5

Curious to know about me?  Here's my introduction thread: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=266266.msg13136350#new

My schedule occasionally gets kind of hectic, so if I suddenly disappear for a period of time, not to worry, I am likely just working like a dog.  I will be back.

HannibalBarca

I hold no love for both parties, either.  The Democrats have tended to align more often with my preferences than the Republicans over the years, but have become progressively (no pun intended) worse.

I do understand why the EC was created, but it's hardly accurate now.  80.7% of the country's population is urban, regardless of their political leanings.  Even Portland isn't 100% liberal, nor is Salt Lake City 100% conservative.  But the election of a president isn't local, it's national.  The general consensus of the population has to be taken into consideration for that election.  Localities can be represented more accurately in state legislatures of even in the House of Representatives, but the Presidency must be elected from a majority of the voters of the entire nation.  If that means certain populations rarely see one of their picks get elected, so be it.  It doesn't just go for rural voters.  Rural voters are only one minority that has been represented many times in the recent past.  Carter, the Bushes, Clinton...I'd consider them rural candidates more often than not.  Obama lived in Chicago but came from Kansas and Hawaii, which I'd call a rural upbringing.  When was the last time we had a President from New York or Los Angeles...or Dallas or Milwaukee for that matter?

I don't mind conservatives winning elections.  I just want it to be fair.  The alternative is one-party rule.  If Democrats ended up winning the Presidency for decades, as it did early in the nation's history, so be it.  It eventually went through growing pains of its own, being led by different factions within the party.  I think you're right, DelightfullyMAD, about both parties going through--at the very least--a metamorphosis.  The factions within both parties are at a point where they are very fractious.  That is driven primarily by societal and cultural causes, but the whole idea of having only two major parties decide all is itself fracturing, and I think that's a good thing.
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu