the electoral college should be abolished for the popular vote

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 86
#31
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
States are unique cultural entities and not monolithic as some on the left pretend.
If you say there are only Democrats in one state and only Republicans in another state, then you might have a valid point. However, there are Democrats and Republican in every state. Culture has squat to do with electing presidents, that is, unless one decides to vote based on their culture rather than the qualifications of the presidential candidates. 

#32
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ATroubledMan
fine you win, happy?  you're dismissed, have a nice day.
#33
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
It is estimated approximately 138 million people voted in the 2016 elections. Around 3 million people more voted for Clinton over Trump. Yet, the electoral college got Trump the presidency. Surely, Republicans were all for the electoral college then, but if the situation went the other way, how many Republicans would be screaming for getting rid of the electoral college?
#34
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
fine you win, happy?  you're dismissed, have a nice day.
For one thing, you can't dismiss me. For the other, try not being a hypocrite, then we might be able to have more productive discussions.

Have a nice day.
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
If you say there are only Democrats in one state and only Republicans in another state, then you might have a valid point. However, there are Democrats and Republican in every state. Culture has squat to do with electing presidents, that is, unless one decides to vote based on their culture rather than the qualifications of the presidential candidates. 

You are suggesting all democrats are monolithic, which clearly is not the case as you will soon discover when the Bernie Bros refuse to vote for Biden in 2020 by large swaths.

That rift has way more to do with geographic cultural location and nothing to do with party affiliation.

#36
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
great ideal. Make it by popular vote so only the voice of large urban areas matter, that way the president is decided by places with really successful governments like Chicago Detroit or LA, and candidates only have to pander to those areas and can give the bird to everyone else.
#37
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
You are suggesting all democrats are monolithic, which clearly is not the case as you will soon discover when the Bernie Bros refuse to vote for Biden in 2020 by large swaths.
That wasn't even remotely what I was trying to explain to you. You're just tossing out red herrings.

#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
Culture has squat to do with electing presidents

That's objectively a false statement. The cultural battle in the Democratic party is proof.
#39
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@Singularity
Make it by popular vote so only the voice of large urban areas matter, that way the president is decided by places with really successful governments like Chicago Detroit or LA, and candidates only have to pander to those areas and can give the bird to everyone else.

 Currently, Wyoming has four times the voting power over California, for example and  it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few swing states. This is even worse than what you propose. 
#40
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
That's objectively a false statement. The cultural battle in the Democratic party is proof.
So, the Democratic party won't vote for a democratic candidate?

#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
Culture is only partially affected by politics. You have a unique set of combined features of culture in each state. Tell, me, what, exactly, is your experience in each state of the Union? Been in a few, a lot, in one, or all? I've lived in a few states that even have multiple distinctive cultures, so, expecting an equivalent politic in each state is absurd. We are, be design, mind you, for being the 3rd largest country in the world, the largest major country by diversity.
#42
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@fauxlaw
 I've lived in a few states that even have multiple distinctive cultures
Did those states have just Democrats, just Republicans or a mixture of both?

#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
Did those states have just Democrats

What kinds of democrats? Democrats are not monolithic. Did you even read the wiki article breaking down the different cultural factions of the democratic party?
#44
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
What kinds of democrats?
You know, Democrats, people who vote Democratic, in the same way there are Republicans, you know, people who vote Republican. 

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this for you.
#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
All, a mix but varied in quantity of both. I'm not arguing that point, but there are other cultural demographics, which also vary by state.
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this for you.

I could probably pull up a bunch of notrueScottsman fallacies if you want.

#47
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@fauxlaw
All, a mix but varied in quantity of both.
Exactly, just like the rest of the country, a mix of Democrats and Republicans who will vote for presidential candidate of their choice. If one candidate gets more votes than the other, he should become president. Last election, Trump got 3 million votes less than Clinton, but Trump is president.

Somehow, the math just doesn't work.
#48
ATroubledMan
ATroubledMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 200
0
1
2
ATroubledMan's avatar
ATroubledMan
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
I could probably pull up a bunch of notrueScottsman fallacies if you want.
Feel free.
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
Somehow, the math just doesn't work.

The math works fine.

Hillary beat Trump by 4.3 million votes in Californa, but it's the same effect as if Hillary beat Trump by 1 vote.

Trump spent zero campaign stops in California knowing full well he would probably lose by 3 million more votes than if he invested time stopped to campaign in California. 

But he didn't, because he would rather win the election than become popular in California, even though it's where much of the MSM is headquartered.

#50
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
The Electoral College was instrumental in Abraham Lincoln’s victory. With a popular vote system the Southerners would’ve rallied and easily defeated Lincoln. No Lincoln no Civil War.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
E.C. is forever the foil of the party of slave labor.
#52
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
E.C. is forever the foil of the party of slave labor.

Without the EC it’s possible that JFK wouldn’t get elected. No JFK no LBJ
#53
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
Somehow, the math just doesn't work.
Sure, the math doesn't work if you consider the USA a single entity. Constitutionally, we are a collection of states, United States [get it] and their populations, independent of one another, vote for and elect the President. It is an election by count of states, not an election by count of the entire national populace. Who makes you think the way you do? The media, of course, by their insistence to count by national numbers. The @#%@$@#% media, as usual, screws everything that moves, and usually messes it up. Helps to read and understands the Constitution, instead. I read it every month, and have for ten years. I'm still just scratching the surface of that most unique of American documents. Try it, sometime.
#54
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Nonetheless, the President represents all and individual states have there own representatives.

And a State vote only represents a majority within a State.

The Electoral College system is so overtly non-representative and corrupt, that if it were the basis of Presidential selection in a less significant Middle
Eastern Country, the U.S.A. would already have bombed the fuck out of it.


#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Don't you have some Irish to bully into submission?
#56
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
The Electoral College system is so overtly non-representative and corrupt,

What are your stats to back-up that statement, or did it come from where the sun doesn't shine?

Meanwhile, I performed a statistical study of the past four presidential elections; 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004. I'm a statistical professional with a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up. I know what I'm doing. The studies consisted of analysis of total votes for the two major-party candidates in each election, state by state, compared to the total populations of each state. You might be surprised by the result.

It is said that without the Electoral College, the total votes for the president elected would be achieved by the total popular votes in just a few large-populated states, like CA, TX, FL, and NY, the current largest populated states in the Union. Not entirely so.

Once I collected the data, I created two separate columns of data; one by popular vote in each state, and one by electoral college vote in each state. The popular vote column arranged the states in descending order, most to least by state population. The electoral college vote column arranged the states in ascending order, least to most by state population.

My intent was to find how many of the most populated states did it take to elect the president in that year, and conversely, how many of the least populated states did it take to elect the president in the same years. With me so far?

On average, considering all four elections, it required an average of 23 most populated states to elect the president if popular vote was the election mode.

Conversely, it required an average of 41 of the least populated states to elect the president by the electoral college mode.

So, which mode appears to you to be the most representative of the whole of American citizens? Isn't that what you are really after in presidential elections, after all? Or, is it just because the media tells you that a national popular vote total is the easiest measure of who is elected? I'd rather have a most representative vote than the easiest vote. Wouldn't you? Besides, tell me which elections in the total of 58 presidential elections in US history were corrupted by a contrary electoral college result. Tell me why in 91% of those 58 elections, the electoral college and popular vote totals were in sync. You're chasing a red herring just to corrupt the Constitution, because changing that is going to be required to have your popular vote..


Topic's author
#57
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
you do realize the conservatives were the pro slavery folks back in the day, right?

and, the main reason the electoral college exists at all, is to preserve slavery?
#58
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
and, the main reason the electoral college exists at all, is to preserve slavery?

Without the Electoral College Lincoln wouldn’t have won as the Southerners would’ve joined forces.
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You would have to abolish the Senate after the EC just on principle.

Let's see how many small states will allow California to dictate policy for them and remain in the USA. 
#60
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@ATroubledMan
Currently, Wyoming has four times the voting power over California, for example and  it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few swing states. This is even worse than what you propose. 

Wait you’re saying Wyoming shouldnt have as many Senators as California?