∞∞∞ wrote:The EC is a complete joke of a system. Just because you live in a large city, it doesn't mean you're going to vote Dem. And just because you live in the middle of nowhere, it doesn't mean you're going to vote GOP. Everyone's vote must count equally or everyone is not equal, and equality is our nation's principle.
This idea that small states need protection from large ones is also garbage and just encourages division. The ability for small states to send legislators to Congress and keep the President in-check would still exist. The EC also makes swing states the ones that matter during an election cycle; in practice, all it does is shift which states have the biggest voice.
The only reason today's right oppose a fair system is the fear of losing. And to be fair, the math says they're right. The GOP knows they can't win on their merits and need affirmative action to compete.
HI54UNI wrote:
Damn. If you had only been alive in 1787 we wouldn't have needed these guys
[img]Pic-of-founding-fathers[/img]
This would neither be the first, nor the last time, we'd change our voting system to be more fair. The founding fathers knew that their words wouldn't (and couldn't) dictate how every American society in the future would govern itself. They simply provided a solid philosophical foundation.
93henfan wrote:
That’s true. 1 out of every 25 voters in DC did vote for Trump!
Yup, and that person's vote doesn't matter in the Electoral College. Which is a pity.
I think the weighting of the states in the EC is absolutely necessary (whether it is weighted correctly is another argument, however). But I don't like the all or nothing system. If a state goes 60-40 and has 10 EC votes, they should be split 6-4.
∞∞∞ wrote:
Yup, and that person's vote doesn't matter in the Electoral College. Which is a pity.
I think the weighting of the states in the EC is absolutely necessary (whether it is weighted correctly is another argument, however). But I don't like the all or nothing system. If a state goes 60-40 and has 10 EC votes, they should be split 6-4.
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't see why any national election should be weighted at all.
One person. One vote.
The fear of "majority rule" doesn't mean we wouldn't still be a Republic with checks and balances.
Last edited by ∞∞∞ on Mon May 07, 2018 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
CAA Flagship wrote:
I think the weighting of the states in the EC is absolutely necessary (whether it is weighted correctly is another argument, however). But I don't like the all or nothing system. If a state goes 60-40 and has 10 EC votes, they should be split 6-4.
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't see why any national election should be weighted at all.
One person. One vote.
The fear of "majority rule" doesn't mean we wouldn't still be a Republic with checks and balances.
This is where your youth (inexperience) shines through. Different regions have different concerns. All of which are vital to the country. Just because there are less people doesn't mean that their concerns are less important (hey wait. Isn't that what the lefties always say for minority groups?).
Which is all fine and well until the one day when Connecticut voters pick one candidate, but then their votes are overturned because their candidate didn't win the national popular vote. It's why the Electoral College has lasted this long and why it's going to last for quite some time - it's too hard to vote out and it, unlike a straight popular vote, allows for the entirety of the country to have a real impact on the election. The Senate is never going to change from two Senators per state for the same reason.
My compromise solution on the electoral college thing: Instead of the number of electoral votes being equal to the number of members of congress, assign them as being equal to the number of congressional reps a state would have if the House of Representatives had 100 members instead of 435.
Last edited by Pwns on Mon May 07, 2018 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
∞∞∞ wrote:
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't see why any national election should be weighted at all.
One person. One vote.
The fear of "majority rule" doesn't mean we wouldn't still be a Republic with checks and balances.
This is where your youth (inexperience) shines through. Different regions have different concerns. All of which are vital to the country. Just because there are less people doesn't mean that their concerns are less important (hey wait. Isn't that what the lefties always say for minority groups?).
You guys ever notice that people only bitch about the EC when their person loses? Namely the Democrats in 2000 and 2016. I've posted the stats time and time again (especially for JSO) - 93% of the time (52/57 elections) the victor also won the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 are 5 elections where the winner of the PV lost the election. That comes to a POTUS winning the EC but losing the PV approximately, every 48 years with an avg delta of 703k votes. 2016 largely skews the number's.
Are we really going to change a system that works 93% of the time? I don't think we should scrap it. But I wouldn't be opposed to some proportional split. If 60% of SC votes for Trump in 2020, then 60% of our electoral votes go to him, for instance.
CAA Flagship wrote:
I think the weighting of the states in the EC is absolutely necessary (whether it is weighted correctly is another argument, however). But I don't like the all or nothing system. If a state goes 60-40 and has 10 EC votes, they should be split 6-4.
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't see why any national election should be weighted at all.
One person. One vote.
The fear of "majority rule" doesn't mean we wouldn't still be a Republic with checks and balances.
We are currently living in majority rule and our Republic has shown to be resilient. We have the Supreme Court and Congress checking the President. His own DoJ is investigating him. His Supreme Court pick sided with Democrats against him. Our Republic is adapting and working as design.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
CAA Flagship wrote:
This is where your youth (inexperience) shines through. Different regions have different concerns. All of which are vital to the country. Just because there are less people doesn't mean that their concerns are less important (hey wait. Isn't that what the lefties always say for minority groups?).
You guys ever notice that people only bitch about the EC when their person loses? Namely the Democrats in 2000 and 2016. I've posted the stats time and time again (especially for JSO) - 93% of the time (52/57 elections) the victor also won the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 are 5 elections where the winner of the PV lost the election. That comes to a POTUS winning the EC but losing the PV approximately, every 48 years with an avg delta of 703k votes. 2016 largely skews the number's.
Are we really going to change a system that works 93% of the time? I don't think we should scrap it. But I wouldn't be opposed to some proportional split. If 60% of SC votes for Trump in 2020, then 60% of our electoral votes go to him, for instance.
I think if a state wants to do that then that's fine - always up to the state as to how they want to apportion their electoral votes. There will of course still be complaints that smaller states get no less than 3 electoral votes because of the skew from the Senate apportioning to each state. And you might end up in more cases, especially in the presence of 3rd party candidates, where no one would get 270 electoral votes and the election would go to the House. However, even though Maine and Nebraska do some sort of split today, I don't see big states with monolithic voting (say California for instance) voluntarily stepping up to reduce their influence and split their votes.
CAA Flagship wrote:
I think the weighting of the states in the EC is absolutely necessary (whether it is weighted correctly is another argument, however). But I don't like the all or nothing system. If a state goes 60-40 and has 10 EC votes, they should be split 6-4.
I think that's a step in the right direction, but I don't see why any national election should be weighted at all.
One person. One vote.
The fear of "majority rule" doesn't mean we wouldn't still be a Republic with checks and balances.
Either way, with today's big political machines, owned by the corporations, nothing changes.
Pwns wrote:My compromise solution on the electoral college thing: Instead of the number of electoral votes being equal to the number of members of congress, assign them as being equal to the number of congressional reps a state would have if the House of Representatives had 100 members instead of 435.
But it's really 50 state elections, not a national election. States rights, bro.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
GannonFan wrote:I don't see big states with monolithic voting (say California for instance) voluntarily stepping up to reduce their influence and split their votes.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Thinking about it a little more, the Electoral College again presents itself as a superior model to direct vote in our Republic in another way - it doesn't sugar coat the winner in tight election. Take this past election - both Clinton and Trump were historically awful candidates. Both were eminently untrustful, both were corrupt, and both were personally very objectionable people. You can argue all day (and JSO has already done it for everyone so please don't start again) if one was less distasteful than the other, but at the end of the day, they were both horrible candidates.
With a direct election, Clinton would've won the popular vote and there would've been a sugarcoating by her supporters that democracy won, a great candidate was elected, and the rest of the country be damned, they're all yokels anyway (well, deplorables at least). Any margin in a direct election is suitable to declare total victory and she would've entered her Presidency with the headwinds of being the popular candidate, despite her well chronicled rank corruption.
With an Electoral College victory, without winning the popular vote, Trump is/was already a wounded President. His baggage from the campaign didn't get washed away with his electoral victory, if anything it magnified it. As Ibanez pointed out, this rarely happens when you look at the history of the US, so Trump is already an oddity just election-wise. The opposition feels justified in thwarting him, and in our government, even the opposition party, without control of either house in the Legislature, is able to muck up the works, and they have. Trump's supporters would love to crow that their man won a mandate, but clearly in a tight election like this with the popular vote not going to the winner, they've been ineffective in doing so. Rather than falling back on the direct vote and spouting "one person one vote" slogans to gloss over the winner's blemishes, the Electoral College has given us a President as hindered as the one who campaigned and won in the EC. I like that.
If you wanted to have a good reason for having the Electoral College it would be that you should not have direct popular vote select the President in any way, shape, or form. The popular vote is a factor in selecting the State legislatures. Then the State legislators pick electors and the electors vote for Presidents. There IS no national election where everybody goes out to vote.
There's an argument for that. But that's not what we're doing. If we WERE doing that Trump would not be President because there is no WAY such a system would tab an atrocity like that as President. There is no way even ONE State legislature would have directed its electors to vote for somebody like that to be in that position.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
JohnStOnge wrote:If you wanted to have a good reason for having the Electoral College it would be that you should not have direct popular vote select the President in any way, shape, or form. The popular vote is a factor in selecting the State legislatures. Then the State legislators pick electors and the electors vote for Presidents. There IS no national election where everybody goes out to vote.
There's an argument for that. But that's not what we're doing. If we WERE doing that Trump would not be President because there is no WAY such a system would tab an atrocity like that as President. There is no way even ONE State legislature would have directed its electors to vote for somebody like that to be in that position.
If, if's and but's were candy and nuts. Well we did have a couple nuts that most people voted for.
CAA Flagship wrote:
This is where your youth (inexperience) shines through. Different regions have different concerns. All of which are vital to the country. Just because there are less people doesn't mean that their concerns are less important (hey wait. Isn't that what the lefties always say for minority groups?).
You guys ever notice that people only bitch about the EC when their person loses? Namely the Democrats in 2000 and 2016. I've posted the stats time and time again (especially for JSO) - 93% of the time (52/57 elections) the victor also won the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 are 5 elections where the winner of the PV lost the election. That comes to a POTUS winning the EC but losing the PV approximately, every 48 years with an avg delta of 703k votes. 2016 largely skews the number's.
Are we really going to change a system that works 93% of the time? I don't think we should scrap it. But I wouldn't be opposed to some proportional split. If 60% of SC votes for Trump in 2020, then 60% of our electoral votes go to him, for instance.
Ok. So you are saying that a the electoral college system worked 93% of the time because 93% of the time it had the same result as the popular vote. Well...if the system were popular vote the system would've worked 100% of the time. 100% of the time the winner by the popular vote won the popular vote.
Also, by the system you propose, I'm pretty sure Trump would've lost. THAT system pretty much is the same as going with the popular vote.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star? Deep Purple: No One Came
JohnStOnge wrote:If you wanted to have a good reason for having the Electoral College it would be that you should not have direct popular vote select the President in any way, shape, or form. The popular vote is a factor in selecting the State legislatures. Then the State legislators pick electors and the electors vote for Presidents. There IS no national election where everybody goes out to vote.
There's an argument for that. But that's not what we're doing. If we WERE doing that Trump would not be President because there is no WAY such a system would tab an atrocity like that as President. There is no way even ONE State legislature would have directed its electors to vote for somebody like that to be in that position.
Jon. It’s NOT A NATINOAL ELECTION. It’s 50 individual STATE ELECTIONS.
Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
JohnStOnge wrote:If you wanted to have a good reason for having the Electoral College it would be that you should not have direct popular vote select the President in any way, shape, or form. The popular vote is a factor in selecting the State legislatures. Then the State legislators pick electors and the electors vote for Presidents. There IS no national election where everybody goes out to vote.
There's an argument for that. But that's not what we're doing. If we WERE doing that Trump would not be President because there is no WAY such a system would tab an atrocity like that as President. There is no way even ONE State legislature would have directed its electors to vote for somebody like that to be in that position.
Jon. It’s NOT A NATINOAL ELECTION. It’s 50 individual STATE ELECTIONS.
Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
Wait- the election of the President is a state election? I’m not following you....
Ibanez wrote:
You guys ever notice that people only bitch about the EC when their person loses? Namely the Democrats in 2000 and 2016. I've posted the stats time and time again (especially for JSO) - 93% of the time (52/57 elections) the victor also won the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 are 5 elections where the winner of the PV lost the election. That comes to a POTUS winning the EC but losing the PV approximately, every 48 years with an avg delta of 703k votes. 2016 largely skews the number's.
Are we really going to change a system that works 93% of the time? I don't think we should scrap it. But I wouldn't be opposed to some proportional split. If 60% of SC votes for Trump in 2020, then 60% of our electoral votes go to him, for instance.
Ok. So you are saying that a the electoral college system worked 93% of the time because 93% of the time it had the same result as the popular vote. Well...if the system were popular vote the system would've worked 100% of the time. 100% of the time the winner by the popular vote won the popular vote.
Also, by the system you propose, I'm pretty sure Trump would've lost. THAT system pretty much is the same as going with the popular vote.
And we don’t use the popular vote for a reason- which has already be laid out for you.
You just need to accept the fact that Trump is POTUS. You’re constant harping on the election outcome is as obsessive as Trumps obsession with the results.
I've posted the stats time and time again (especially for JSO) - 93% of the time (52/57 elections) the victor also won the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 are 5 elections where the winner of the PV lost the election. That comes to a POTUS winning the EC but losing the PV approximately, every 48 years with an avg delta of 703k votes. 2016 largely skews the number's. 
