We should abolish the electoral college

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 38
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I don't know why conservatives are so pro electoral college.  The electoral college is Affirmative action to states that can't attract as many people.  If you want more voting power in your state, then your state needs to find a way to attract more people.

If your worried about democrats coming into power, what you might want to do is abolish political parties and force every politician to run as an independent so there are no parties.  But the thing to first do is rank choice voting, 5 candidates, each of whom must have up to 10 policy agendas that they fight for and between 3 to 7 of them have to be left wing ideas and between 3 to 7 of them have to be right wing ideas.  This way, voters are selecting somebody that they agree with at least 80% of the time instead of at least 50% of the time.

If this happens, there is no need for the electoral college because every vote would be equal, just like it is in all 50 states; it's not like in Nevada, where the vast majority of the population of that state lives in Clark County, it's not like Nevada has an electoral college where counties with less population are given more votes.  This is true for every other state in the union.  So why not for the country at large?  And get rid of the senate; it represents Wyoming and Vermont per capita way more than California or Texas.
#2
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
every vote should be equal. everyone intuitively knows this. yet, when you point out to a pro electoral college person that the college makes votes not equal, you can then watch them contort themselves into all kinds of shapes. most of these people have never really truly grappled with the fact that the college makes vote unequal, and pointing it out is a good way to catch them off guard. of course, humans are too prone to stick to their guns even if it dont make sense, so they force the issue. 

bottom line. someone in california should have as much voting power as someone in north dakota. the electoral college makes this not the case. that's why it should be abolished. 
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@n8nrgim
If you believe voting should be equal, then you might also want to believe that representation should be equal.  In that case, abolish the senate!
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't know why conservatives are so pro electoral college.  The electoral college is Affirmative action to states that can't attract as many people.  If you want more voting power in your state, then your state needs to find a way to attract more people.
It’s called the United States of America.

If your worried about democrats coming into power, what you might want to do is abolish political parties and force every politician to run as an independent so there are no parties.  But the thing to first do is rank choice voting, 5 candidates, each of whom must have up to 10 policy agendas that they fight for and between 3 to 7 of them have to be left wing ideas and between 3 to 7 of them have to be right wing ideas.  This way, voters are selecting somebody that they agree with at least 80% of the time instead of at least 50% of the time.
Or we keep the status quo since 1800 when the first election happened, which has worked successfully all these years.

If this happens, there is no need for the electoral college because every vote would be equal, just like it is in all 50 states; it's not like in Nevada, where the vast majority of the population of that state lives in Clark County, it's not like Nevada has an electoral college where counties with less population are given more votes. 
We live in a constitutional republic. 

This is true for every other state in the union.  So why not for the country at large?  And get rid of the senate; it represents Wyoming and Vermont per capita way more than California or Texas.
The United States wouldn’t exist if the Senate didn’t exist. Have you even read the Federalist Papers lol. Forget that, have you ever studied American history?
#5
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgim
every vote should be equal. everyone intuitively knows this. yet, when you point out to a pro electoral college person that the college makes votes not equal, you can then watch them contort themselves into all kinds of shapes. most of these people have never really truly grappled with the fact that the college makes vote unequal, and pointing it out is a good way to catch them off guard. of course, humans are too prone to stick to their guns even if it dont make sense, so they force the issue. 

bottom line. someone in california should have as much voting power as someone in north dakota. the electoral college makes this not the case. that's why it should be abolished. 
You realize the popular vote system is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid right?
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
If some conservatives actually attempted thinking as an alternative to whistling with pride under their red hats and above their American pickup truck driver seats, would they still be conservatives?

I know I am stating a stereotype, but everyone knows that some of them are only embracing such stereotypes proudly, going only righter and righter as time passes. 
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,002
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Virtually everyone embraces technology.

And as time passes the power of technology will only get Lefter and Lefter, until it becomes extremely Right. Big Brother.
#8
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Depends on who uses it and how it is being used. Being decentralized, if bitcoin is an actual commodity with daily purpose instead of intangible currency, it would be considered an anarchistic, libertarian left thing rather than right. Sadly, the investment nature of bitcoins induces people to save it rather than spend it or donate it to wider society on a large scale, increasing the wealth gap as opposed to decreasing.

Then, is Big Brother "right" at all? I mean, he is a class, everyone else is possibly the same other class. Authoritarianism is not inherently left or right, unless even the air is protected by the robo-army of the leader because it is considered his property and others ought to not trespass into it, then it is incredibly right. That is what happens when you turn commodity into money in that direction. That is what NFTs are doing. We want the opposite if we want equality. Most of us buy stuff, not turning stuff into virtual numbers on a machine, and money would be more productive turning into stuff than auto-accumulating on itself.

Nobody want money itself. Money buys happiness, but it isn't happiness. What we do want is the power to use money to turn into commodities, but as you get too rich and paranoid to be among the people(the proletariat, correct me if I used the word incorrectly) enough you forget why you want money. Paypal and Visa and even bitcoin are just tech to make it easier for money to turn into stuff.

Why am I ranting on economics and money? Possibly because I just finished my Economics assignment in high school. That said, embracers of tech is good, bootlickers of corporations(or in this case, corporations themselves) granting themselves the name of embracing technology is not. That is what makes it good when Jeff Bezos published Facebook initially and worth Boo-ing when he briefly went to outer space without the mindset of an astronaut. Possibly the same with Elon Musk.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,002
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well done on the Economics.

Hope it was a successful assignment.



Bitcoin et al, is the new phase (electronic money) of wealth assumption, relative to techno.

 Wads of paper and chinkley metal discs  are certainly done for.

And as techno evolves the device will surely go and the implant will follow.

And then we will all eventually be uncontrollably linked to something.

And who or what will control that something? 



For as long as money is the One True GOD that governs the success and progress of humanity..



Not trying to be sci-fi scary.

Just Sci-realistic.

Material evolution in progress, for a reason MAYBE.
#10
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@zedvictor4
For as long as money is the One True GOD that governs the success and progress of humanity..
Not exactly.

I believe Jesus promised poor people bread if they follow him and his faith. Does that mean Bread is christianity? No.

Money is not God, but rather it is what makes people believe in God. I remember at the olden times where the church sells indulgence for money. For the sole reason, it makes money even more dangerous than God.

#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,002
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
I use the acronym GOD.

That which might command devotion.


An acronym of ones choosing.

How about.....Genesis of Destruction.


I don't believe that Jesus was any more than he was.

I accept that there probably was a real person represented by the biblical character of Jesus.

And that said character was considered noteworthy at the time.


Have a nice day.
#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,429
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

You need to run for President when you are older!
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,639
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
This is the long answer from the official government website

Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation's financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House.  Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses.  When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters -- except those involving money.  
Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin's proposal.  On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a heart-stopping margin of one vote.  As the 1987 celebrants duly noted, without that vote, there would likely have been no Constitution, or nation.

The short answer is that a "might makes right" democracy allows for no diversity of thought.
#14
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
i can understand giving minorities representation, but i think the senate is adequate for that. something as powerful as the presidency should be based on majority vote... every vote should be equal. 
#15
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
"The short answer is that a "might makes right" democracy allows for no diversity of thought."

that is a well stated argument. 

#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,639
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
The last time we attempted pure democracy was in the 1850's with State popular sovereignty dictating the balance of Federal power. 

That led to a Civil War.
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Or we keep the status quo since 1800 when the first election happened, which has worked successfully all these years.
In 1800, the states were very different than they are today.  New York was very different from New Jersey.  But now their interests are very similar; to push democrat agendas in their state and for the nation.  Just like how Georgia and Florida used to be very different places, but now they are much more integrated with one another.

We live in a constitutional republic. 
What's the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy?  The US is a constitutional republic, but the states are democracies.  Lets emulate what the states did to elect their leaders.


Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
I want to run for president when I'm older.  I am a half republican half democrat, so whichever party I pick, if I can win the primary, I can win the general by appealing to independents.  But I welcome your endorsement!
#19
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
In 1800, the states were very different than they are today.  New York was very different from New Jersey.  But now their interests are very similar; to push democrat agendas in their state and for the nation.  Just like how Georgia and Florida used to be very different places, but now they are much more integrated with one another.
That is irrelevant. The divide was always between small state and large state not by size of the state but by population of the state. And once again you fail to recognize basic American History.

What's the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy?  The US is a constitutional republic, but the states are democracies.  Let’s emulate what the states did to elect their leaders.
States are have Constitutional Republican forms of government. This shows that you don’t know what the structure of state governments even is. And once again, you fail to address my comment about the Founding Fathers consciously not doing a popular vote style of government.
#20
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I want to run for president when I'm older.  I am a half republican half democrat, so whichever party I pick, if I can win the primary, I can win the general by appealing to independents.  But I welcome your endorsement!
You would lose in the party primary. Once again you demonstrate how you don’t know how the system works and it’s designed
#21
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
"I don't know why conservatives are so pro electoral college.  The electoral college is Affirmative action to states that can't attract as many people.  If you want more voting power in your state, then your state needs to find a way to attract more people."
No, it's a checks n balances on the corrupt voting system that gets stacked by states with higher populations than others that could literally change the tide of an election. When a state life CA is full of morons, we don't need them voting to fuck this country up any further. It's precisely what saved America from the wicked witch Hillary. 
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The divide was always between small state and large state not by size of the state but by population of the state. And once again you fail to recognize basic American History.
There is not much of a political divide between Texas and Wyoming; they are both red states.  The same is true of California and Vermont; they are both blue states.  The majority of people in these areas want to force their party’s agenda on the nation.

States are have Constitutional Republican forms of government.
States elect their leaders by popular vote.  The US President should get elected the same way.

And once again, you fail to address my comment about the Founding Fathers consciously not doing a popular vote style of government.
States had much more autonomy in 1778 than they do in 2023.  So the founders wanted states to have more power, not the people in them, although this was factored into the electoral college.

I think the main reason the GOP supports the electoral college is because they are worried their party won’t win without it.  But if you get rid of political parties, this ceases to be an issue.

You would lose in the party primary.
Possible; but moderates have been elected to the party primaries before and have won the election (like 2020 and Bill Clinton’s election).
Topic's author
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
When a state life CA is full of morons, we don't need them voting to fuck this country up any further. 
What makes you think CA’s population is any dumber than the people from Texas or Alabama (or vice versa)?  Being left wing (or right wing) doesn’t make you dumb.

The way to reverse this is to give every person a certain number of votes based on their IQ (so morons don’t have a lot of power).  Would you support this?

It's precisely what saved America from the wicked witch Hillary.
People liked Hilliary; you don’t have to; others did.  Rank choice voting would have made a Clinton winner or a Trump winner less likely (I am pro Rank choice voting).
#24
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If u have to ask those questions, you’re a lost cause. 🤦‍♂️🙄🤦‍♂️🙄🤦‍♂️
#25
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is not much of a political divide between Texas and Wyoming; they are both red states.  The same is true of California and Vermont; they are both blue states.  The majority of people in these areas want to force their party’s agenda on the nation.
Again, this is irrelevant. Rather than saying the same thing over an over again, I suggest you read up on The Great Compromise. Without it, the United States would not exist.

States elect their leaders by popular vote.  The US President should get elected the same way.
States are the Republic of Texas, not the United States of Texas. We live in the United States of America. States were purposely granted power over individuals; not to mention bigger states in terms of population have more Electoral Votes.

States had much more autonomy in 1778 than they do in 2023.  So the founders wanted states to have more power, not the people in them, although this was factored into the electoral college.
Let me help you little on the reasons why an Electoral College chooses the President according to the Founding Fathers: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

I think the main reason the GOP supports the electoral college is because they are worried their party won’t win without it.  But if you get rid of political parties, this ceases to be an issue.
Again, it’s about preserving the genius of our Founding Fathers. They purposely chose to not do a popular vote because of its ramifications and failures throughout history. 

Possible; but moderates have been elected to the party primaries before and have won the election (like 2020 and Bill Clinton’s election).
Bill Clinton won because Bush Sr increased taxes and because Republicans overplayed their hand in impeachment. 

Joe Biden won cause of the rigged COVID rules and Zuckerbucks that flooded Democratic cities.
#26
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
He’s the know it all on the block who has no clue what he’s even saying 
Topic's author
#27
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Again, this is irrelevant.
You were claiming it was relavent.

We live in the United States of America. States were purposely granted power over individuals; not to mention bigger states in terms of population have more Electoral Votes.
It’s not proportional; California has 80x as many people as Wyoming, but only 17x as many electoral votes.  That’s not fair.

Again, it’s about preserving the genius of our Founding Fathers. They purposely chose to not do a popular vote because of its ramifications and failures throughout history.
They did the electoral college when the states were very different from each other, but now the states are much more similar to each other.

Bill Clinton won because Bush Sr increased taxes and because Republicans overplayed their hand in impeachment.
Taxes in the US stayed pretty much the same since Reagan’s time in office (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-federal-income-tax-rates-work).

Joe Biden won cause of the rigged COVID rules and Zuckerbucks that flooded Democratic cities.
You can speculate as to why he won, but he won while being a moderate.  That’s my point.
Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I disagree with post 26, but you believe that.
#29
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,898
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
You were claiming it was relavent.
No, I said populations were the relevant factor. You kept talking about political divide. Small states with small populations vs big states with big populations were the main source of contention at the Constitutional Convention.

It’s not proportional; California has 80x as many people as Wyoming, but only 17x as many electoral votes.  That’s not fair.
I didn’t say it was proportional. You’re putting words in my mouth. My whole point was that you can win the Electoral College with a big state coalition while picking off some smaller states and you can win the electoral college with a coalition of small states and picking off some big states. In a popular vote scenario, you rely solely on maximizing turnout in the big states. 

They did the electoral college when the states were very different from each other, but now the states are much more similar to each other.
False again. Economic considerations, slavery considerations, and religion created a lot of commonalities even back then. But again what I mentioned wasn’t the consideration. The consideration was representation in Congress which big states wanted based on population and small states with smaller populations wanted equal by state. You still haven’t read the Great Compromise have you.

Taxes in the US stayed pretty much the same since Reagan’s time in office (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-federal-income-tax-rates-work).
Let me be more clear: Bush Sr. Lost because he promised he wouldn’t raise taxes but still did. 

You can speculate as to why he won, but he won while being a moderate.  That’s my point.
He didn’t win on policy. That’s like saying a dude who got ran over by a car and who had COVID, died of COVID

I disagree with post 26, but you believe that.
I will because you’ve done this before. You refuse to do adequate research on the law and history before coming here and posting “hot takes”
Topic's author
#30
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Small states with small populations vs big states with big populations were the main source of contention at the Constitutional Convention.
Yeah, but right now, the divide is red state vs blue state, not big state vs small state.  Otherwise California and Texas would be on the same team.

My whole point was that you can win the Electoral College with a big state coalition while picking off some smaller states and you can win the electoral college with a coalition of small states and picking off some big states. In a popular vote scenario, you rely solely on maximizing turnout in the big states.
In a popular vote snarareao, most people in the US don’t live in one of the 4 biggest states in the country.  It’s possible to win the popular vote while not getting a single vote from California, Texas, New York, or Florida.  I’m from CT, but I don’t feel like a CT resident; I feel like an American.  It makes more sense to have the electoral college based on ethnicity (so the British ethnicity gets some electoral votes, the Italian ethnicity gets some electoral votes, the Indian ethnicity gets some electoral votes) than to have the things that get electoral votes be pieces of land on a map where people are well mixed up to an extent.  But ideally, everyone’s vote should matter equally individually.

Economic considerations, slavery considerations, and religion created a lot of commonalities even back then.
What do you mean by economic considerations or religious ones?  Christian’s make up the majority of every state in the country.  Slavery was an issue when the states had way more autonomy; they have less autonomy now.

You still haven’t read the Great Compromise have you.
I know why the elecoral college existed; I don’t see the point in it now.  NYC voters have more in common with LA voters than they do upstate NY voters.  The states don’t mean much anymore.

He didn’t win on policy. That’s like saying a dude who got ran over by a car and who had COVID, died of COVID
Biden won because mask mandates in 2020 were backed by 80% of the population and Trump didn’t support them.  This caused some people to vote democrat.  People also didn’t like Trump’s personality.  Me, I like a guy that has the balls to brag about his net worth.  But a lot of people got sick of Trump.

You refuse to do adequate research on the law and history before coming here and posting “hot takes”
It’s just that my history knowledge isn’t the best, although I learned a fair amount of it in school.  I learned about the electoral college and why we have it, even if I don’t agree with it now.  If I was alive in 1800, I would have agreed, but not now when society is much more integrated.