the electoral college should be abolished for the popular vote

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 86
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
the reason? simple. one person, one vote. all votes should be equal. i get the reasoning behind the college, that like the senate, there could be a way to level the playing field with small states v highly populated ones. but so what? if you support the electoral college, you dont think all votes should be equal. you can't claim to think that at all. we should be democratic, if a state has more people, it should have more power.... one person, one vote. 

as far as the politics of it, even Trump wanted to abolish it before he became president. like all things political, his beliefs have changed vastly when he became president, and are made only to benefit himself and be a stooge to the republican party. all the republicans who support the college probably didn't before trump, either. as for me, ive never supported the college, way back to when i was a kid, well before even Al gore lost to the college while winning a majority vote, well before it was clear that the college is the only way republicans can win. 

if you support the college, will you here and now explicitly acknowledge that you dont think all votes should be equal? 
#2
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
the U.S. is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy, this has been discussed many times.  There are reason the electoral college exists and why it should.  If it were mob rules then California and New York would always pick the president and the rest of the states, their votes would be meaningless.  This has already been figured out, the population of those 2 states and the fact they would vote the same makes the college necessary otherwise the other states would have no representation of any consequence with regards to electing presidents.
If the population was evenly distributed over the U.S. then perhaps a plain majority could work, but that's not possible, thus we have a Republic.
Topic's author
#3
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you don't believe every vote should be equal?




#4
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
I believe there is no perfect system, but for everyone to have some representation the college is necessary, otherwise, as I said no election would be needed California and New York would tell the rest of us who the next president would be.  How would that make all votes equal?  2 states making the choice for the other 48 and territories would make all votes equal?
Topic's author
#5
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yep, a popular vote is the only way to make all votes equal. i understand your reasoning behind wanting the college, but dont sit here and pretend you are only trying to make votes equal. one person, one vote = equal voting = only possible with a popular vote. apparently, you think someone in north dakota should count much more than someone in california. they are both people, but yet you dont think they should have an equal vote.

just own up to it. 
#6
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
I think a much easier/more sensible fix would be to keep the electoral system but have delegates be awarded proportionally rather than winner take all. 

The electoral system itself gives more power to smaller states, which the Founding Fathers intended, but the issue nowadays has become that 6 or 7 states effectively garner all the attention from candidates since they are in a position to swing the election to either side.... It got to the point in 2012 that Iowa, Florida, Ohio and I think Pennsylvania got half of all campaign rallies from presidential candidates while the other half went to the other 46 states. 

By switching to a proportional award system with the electoral college though, this main issue can be cut out while a lot of other benefits can happen 

1 - Nearly every state becomes more important..... (the margin of victory could add or subtract the number of delegates a candidate wins)
2 - Rather than 5-7 swing states we get 15-20.... (which splits up the time candidates spend among more states rather than the same handful)
3 - It provides a better entry for third parties..... (If you get 20% of the vote in a state with more than 5 delegates, that person can win electoral votes) 
4 - More issues gain national attention..... (The more states in contention, the bigger the field of issues candidates need to have stances on) 
5 - Gives voice to minority parties in opposing states..... (Republicans inCalifornia and Democrats in Texas have much more powerful say) 

I did a bit of a project on this for the 2016 and basically, if electoral delegates were limited to the candidates actually running, the final vote count was about 272 for Trump, 265 for Hillary, and a handful for a third party candidate who managed to get 20%-30% of the vote in Utah 
#7
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
What's crazy to me is that voting is set up in such a manner such that the winner takes all. A state could vote 51% republican and 49% democrat or vise versa, and the electors will all go to the majority, despite it being roughly 50%. Why not just have proportional distribution of electors?

#8
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
pretend you are only trying to make votes equal.

I never said any such thing at all, mob rule, majority rule has some very ugly past dealings, perhaps you should consider that.
#9
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
The system gives representation to rural communities who wouldn't get that voice in a populous system. It gives rural communities access to representation within state, hence why the system exists. Otherwise representatives would be based by Social Darwinsm, which is a flawed social concept which would result in discrimination.

I would be fine with a distribution system
#10
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Counties and districts are decided by popular vote. One vote = one person. Then the county overall turns to the winner. Then whoever then gets the most votes for the state takes the state and it's votes. You vote for the candidate by voting for it's electors, the people who will elect him. It is a system that brings balance to small states and rural communities, one that is disregarded by society
Topic's author
#11
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you did say that... here is your quote: "How would that make all votes equal?" you were trying to claim you were making votes equal. 

but you dont want all votes to be equal. just own it.

state it with me "i, dredpriate, dont believe all votes should be equal".
#12
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
all votes are already equal
#13
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
I almost, almost applaud your failed attempt to be smug, problem is, that question was directed at you it wasn't rhetorical, can't even give you a "nice try" sorry, but that was a pretty awful attempt.  You do not possess that skill yet, keep trying.

I'll restate my question to you, how do you consider it making all votes equal if 2 out of 50 states will choose who is president?  48 states, a majority of the land mass won't matter under mob rule.
Topic's author
#14
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
why won't you admit that you don't think all votes are equal?

#15
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
equal in what way?  that 1=1?  ok, equal out come?  obviously not as ImaBench clearly explained.  Have you nothing better to do than this extremely lame attempt at a "gotcha"?
Topic's author
#16
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ok, so for some reason you don't like me talking about the idea of "equal". 

will you freely admit that you think someone in north dakota should have more influence over who becomes president than someone in california? 
#17
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
 If it were mob rules
Lol. I've never heard of an election where each person has the right to vote as mob rules. It's called a majority, you know, the majority of people who vote for a president? 

There are reason the electoral college exists and why it should.
Yes, so that it gives Wyoming four times the voting power over California, for example and  it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few swing states.

 If it were mob rules then California and New York would always pick the president
No, Americans would always pick the president. It doesn't matter what state they reside.

If the population was evenly distributed over the U.S.
What in the world does that have to do with anything? The population could all be centered in one tiny area and still each person would have a vote.
#18
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't like you talking about the idea of equal?  I don't give a fk what you talk about LOL wow you give yourself WAY too much credit.

will you freely admit that you think someone in north dakota should have more influence over who becomes president than someone in california? 

I will freely admit that 2 states should not be able to elect the president when ever they chose to vote together.

it's funny this only ever became such a hot topic after Trump won, there is no limit to the spread of tds.
#19
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ATroubledMan
see post #6
#20
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
see post #6
I was responding to your post, not post #6. Your post bordered on the absurd.

#21
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ATroubledMan
well he said it best and knows far more than I, so read it.
#22
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well he said it best and knows far more than I, so read it.
Lol. And you said I was evasive. But, I understand why you can't defend your words. Who could defend something so ridiculous?

#23
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ATroubledMan
the post to which you are referring was not directed at you, n8nrgmi understood what I was saying, if he needed or wanted clarification he would have asked, we've talked many times before.

Topic's author
#24
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i like the idea of the senate. i freely admit, that in this case some people have more power than others in enacting our laws. why can't you also freely admit that your system causes some people to have more power in voting for president than other people? 
#25
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
why can't you also freely admit that your system causes some people to have more power in voting for president than other people? 
you never asked that question, just like ImaBench pointed out, some states do have more power and it doesn't seem to be proportionate, but again I would defer to him as he knows much more than I do on the subject.
If it were up to me I would consider something like after a 2 term president the other party gets to chose the president, something more balanced, everything is so polarized it's getting down right scary, we need a better balance.
#26
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
so you don't believe every vote should be equal?

Do you believe slavery should still exist. Without the Electoral College there would’ve been a unifying effect under the popular vote system to deny Lincoln the Presidency. Simple majority can be dangerous. That’s the reason the founding fathers wanted a diverse coalition of states. They wanted people to compromise.
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
USA is a union of states. Elections are done with a plurality of states for the sole reason that the union will fall apart if States do not get equal say.

Imagine elections being decided with a supermajority of 2 or 3 large states. That would be the end of the union. States are unique cultural entities and not monolithic as some on the left pretend.
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you think Trump won only because of the EC rules and not because Hillary was god awful, I have some Russian land to sell you Comrade.
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
States are unique cultural entities and not monolithic
Spot on! Some here maintain, for example, relevant to presidential politics, and relevant to the point that they are political entities, either Dem or GOP, that States are red or blue and ne'er the twain shall meet. However, not one of the 50 has ever been just red, or blue. The whole of them have been one and the other.
#30
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the post to which you are referring was not directed at you, n8nrgmi understood what I was saying, if he needed or wanted clarification he would have asked, we've talked many times before.
Since this is a public forum, I have the right to expose nonsense like anyone else, your nonsense was thus exposed as such. You tried to do the same thing with me and now you're complaining when it comes back to haunt you?