New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The popular vote isn't a thing

Dino

Russian Asset
What do you think would be the down side of using the popular vote instead of the EC?
The fact is that there were two elections where the EC didn't match the popular vote. You like it because your "team" won, but gave us two of the worst presidents I've seen in my 66 years.

The upside would be that my vote would be equal to the vote of a person in Montana or Rhode Island. Republicans in California would have a reason to turn out to vote for president. Candidates would be running a national campaign, not just working the numbers in the battleground states.
Your side does not care enough to insure electoral integrity to make your idea workable.
As long as one side is not interested in enforcing our election laws and standards it is impossible to make sure "every vote counts". Quite to the contrary any illegal vote cast (felons, impersonating legal voters, multiple votes, dead people voting, illegals casting ballots) that isn't being enforced immediately and absolutely negates legal opposition voters.
That should not be tolerated.
 

trapdoor

Governor
What do you think would be the down side of using the popular vote instead of the EC?
The fact is that there were two elections where the EC didn't match the popular vote. You like it because your "team" won, but gave us two of the worst presidents I've seen in my 66 years.

The upside would be that my vote would be equal to the vote of a person in Montana or Rhode Island. Republicans in California would have a reason to turn out to vote for president. Candidates would be running a national campaign, not just working the numbers in the battleground states.
Mid, I'm starting to be surprised at you. You're normally among the better liberal posters on this forum, and you're completely missing the point I've now made twice or three times: It doesn't matter if I think the electoral college is good or bad, it only matters if you can get a constitutional amendment passed, and you can't do so. The small states that you'd have to recruit to get such a measure passed would have to agree, and they will not agree.

And they won't agree because your point about having the same vote as a person is Montana or Rhode Island is wrong -- without the electoral college the votes from RI or Montana won't matter at all, and candidates will neither campaign in, nor address the concerns of, those areas. Why would they, when they can win simply on votes from NY, LA, Denver, Boston, Miami and Atlanta? Candidates go to swing states now because they need them to win votes in the electoral college. Take that away and they'll no more visit a state like Missouri or Ohio than they'd visit Paris -- they'd campaign only in big urban areas for the same reason that bank robbers rob banks to get money.
 

The truth

Council Member
The electoral college is absurd and outdated.Americans want true democracy,like the other countries.The new generation of voters someday soon will reject this relic from the past
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Missouri is among those battleground states, but you miss the point. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of the states to ratify -- and you can't get 2/3s to do that because it means taking a lot of electoral power away from Arizona, Alabama, Kansas New Mexico, Missouri Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Kentucky, Idaho, Mississippi, Utah, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas -- and a half dozen others I'm skipping from memory. Too many states would oppose the idea.
You assume states have electoral power even though the fact is that most states are one party states....California will go dem no matter what.
 

EatTheRich

President
Condescend much ?

I'm so glad Thousands of Billionaires in San Fran- right around the corner from homeless tents and sh*t covered sidewalks is SO SO advanced and progressive !!!
That’s what progress looks like under capitalism. Differentiation into two great irreconcilable classes whose antagonisms are finally laid bare for all to see. Next step, expropriation of those billionaires.
 

EatTheRich

President
Primaries are a party thing. Changing how they operate is up to the parties, not a constitutional matter. You're right that the existing primary system disenfranchises voters in much of the country. Fixing that will require putting heat on the parties at the state level. The other alternative is eliminating primaries entirely by going back to choosing the POTUS, VPOTUS, and Senators as the framers intended originally.


The USA was intended and designed to be a federation of free states that were mostly autonomous. That's not absurd; it's unarguably so. The USA has become a nation-state divided into districts with a modicum of autonomy. If that's the way one thinks it should be, fine, but the constitutional system wasn't meant for that would need to be scrapped.


I disagree entirely but, regardless, the constitution includes provisions for amending it. Eliminating the EC, if it's to be done, should be done by constitutional amendment. Eliminating the EC's relevance via subversion such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact shouldn't be allowed.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is fully consistent with the current constitutionally prescribed method of electing the president.
 

EatTheRich

President
WTF does that have anything to do with Rural America? Your mind is always abroad when the subject is America, yet, America is where you remain to cry and whine of capitalism! You need move your gayness to San Fran:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-san-francisco-broke-americas-heart/ar-AABGKVD?ocid=spartandhp

A book store really needs you, where will you live?

Founding fathers knew EC would save this great country from the leftist shit above.
I’m saying rural America would be better off if rural voters did not have disproportionate power.
 

trapdoor

Governor
You assume states have electoral power even though the fact is that most states are one party states....California will go dem no matter what.
Yes, and I think that means smaller states need to be protected. One such protection is the electoral college.
 

EatTheRich

President
Your side does not care enough to insure electoral integrity to make your idea workable.
As long as one side is not interested in enforcing our election laws and standards it is impossible to make sure "every vote counts". Quite to the contrary any illegal vote cast (felons, impersonating legal voters, multiple votes, dead people voting, illegals casting ballots) that isn't being enforced immediately and absolutely negates legal opposition voters.
That should not be tolerated.
Voter impersonation is about as rare as the same person being struck by lightning three times. A state is within its constitutional rights to allow felons or “illegals” to vote. Their doing so without authorization is so rare as to be nearly unheard of. Ballot box stuffing is overwhelmingly the province of the Republican Party and the Electoral College increases the incentive for it since it needs to be done only on a small scale in order to alter a close state’s electoral vote winner.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Mid, I'm starting to be surprised at you. You're normally among the better liberal posters on this forum, and you're completely missing the point I've now made twice or three times: It doesn't matter if I think the electoral college is good or bad, it only matters if you can get a constitutional amendment passed, and you can't do so. The small states that you'd have to recruit to get such a measure passed would have to agree, and they will not agree.

And they won't agree because your point about having the same vote as a person is Montana or Rhode Island is wrong -- without the electoral college the votes from RI or Montana won't matter at all, and candidates will neither campaign in, nor address the concerns of, those areas. Why would they, when they can win simply on votes from NY, LA, Denver, Boston, Miami and Atlanta? Candidates go to swing states now because they need them to win votes in the electoral college. Take that away and they'll no more visit a state like Missouri or Ohio than they'd visit Paris -- they'd campaign only in big urban areas for the same reason that bank robbers rob banks to get money.
You must have missed my post about the National Popular Vote Compact...it has been passed in enough states to have almost 200 EC votes committed to the winner of the national popular vote. So there goes your constitutional amendment argument.

Then we have your assertion that if the popular vote picks the president then votes in Montana won't matter....are you kidding? They don't matter now. There were no campaign events in Montana in 2016....and none in RI. The candidates went to Ohio, PA, VA and FLA....
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, and I think that means smaller states need to be protected. One such protection is the electoral college.
Protected from what? You some how have equated the 80,000 votes that won the election for Trump to the 3 million more votes that went for Clinton...and that actually makes sense to you.
 

EatTheRich

President
Mid, I'm starting to be surprised at you. You're normally among the better liberal posters on this forum, and you're completely missing the point I've now made twice or three times: It doesn't matter if I think the electoral college is good or bad, it only matters if you can get a constitutional amendment passed, and you can't do so. The small states that you'd have to recruit to get such a measure passed would have to agree, and they will not agree.

And they won't agree because your point about having the same vote as a person is Montana or Rhode Island is wrong -- without the electoral college the votes from RI or Montana won't matter at all, and candidates will neither campaign in, nor address the concerns of, those areas. Why would they, when they can win simply on votes from NY, LA, Denver, Boston, Miami and Atlanta? Candidates go to swing states now because they need them to win votes in the electoral college. Take that away and they'll no more visit a state like Missouri or Ohio than they'd visit Paris -- they'd campaign only in big urban areas for the same reason that bank robbers rob banks to get money.
Unless the cities were divided in which case rural voters would have the balance of power.

So if all the cities were overwhelmingly in favor of a single candidate, would it make sense to let a small rural minority overrule them?
 

trapdoor

Governor
You must have missed my post about the National Popular Vote Compact...it has been passed in enough states to have almost 200 EC votes committed to the winner of the national popular vote. So there goes your constitutional amendment argument.

Then we have your assertion that if the popular vote picks the president then votes in Montana won't matter....are you kidding? They don't matter now. There were no campaign events in Montana in 2016....and none in RI. The candidates went to Ohio, PA, VA and FLA....
I must have -- but enough states are opting out that it won't matter, and if it ever affects the outcome of a presidential election, I'd expect the losing candidate to go to SCOTUS. The constitution establishes the electoral college, not a popular vote system, and the laws might be challengeable on those grounds.

But yes, a popular vote means those votes won't matter. There will no longer be battleground states -- merely a national election (which was never designed -- it was stated many times that what was being created was a federal government, not a national one), in which the states with the largest populations rule everyone else.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Protected from what? You some how have equated the 80,000 votes that won the election for Trump to the 3 million more votes that went for Clinton...and that actually makes sense to you.
Protected from a coalition of larger, more heavily populated states.
 

EatTheRich

President
Well, there's a well thought through and thoroughly explained and justified position.

Two simple questions.

1) Why did the founders create the electoral college? You don't know, do you? Note I didn't ask you to agree with it, just explain THEIR reasoning. You can't do it, can you? I double dog dare you

2) What changed? What is different than when they created it that makes it "outdated?"

I think their reasoning was spot on and I see nothing to have changed except the overflow of the country with socialists who want to use tyranny of the majority to bludgeon the minority. But I'll give you a chance to actually explain your position with more than that you want it, the electoral college is standing between you and free government cheese
1. One goal was to balance regional interests, at a time when different states had different modes of production and radically different economies. Today this is not the case ... the economy in one state looks pretty much like the economy in another.

2. Another was as a hedge against democracy, in order to protect the interests of an elite. History has decided against the sort of oligarchy the founders intended.

3. Another was due to the practical limitations on campaigning in an era before mass media or rapid travel. Not an issue today.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Unless the cities were divided in which case rural voters would have the balance of power.

So if all the cities were overwhelmingly in favor of a single candidate, would it make sense to let a small rural minority overrule them?
Look at state-level elections in states like Illinois. In Illinois, there's Chicago and everywhere else -- and the rural portions of the state don't matter. Elections are run almost exclusively on Chicago/urban issues.

Another example is Missouri, where a governor can be elected by carrying five of 114 counties.
 

EatTheRich

President
Look at state-level elections in states like Illinois. In Illinois, there's Chicago and everywhere else -- and the rural portions of the state don't matter. Elections are run almost exclusively on Chicago/urban issues.

Another example is Missouri, where a governor can be elected by carrying five of 114 counties.
If a large majority of the people live in one or a few cities, and they all share a common interest, why should a small minority with an antagonistic interest be able to force it on them?
 

trapdoor

Governor
If a large majority of the people live in one or a few cities, and they all share a common interest, why should a small minority with an antagonistic interest be able to force it on them?
Who said anything about a small minority? I'm talking most of the state being effectively ignored in favor of one city, simply because that city has a large population. That's why the EC was created -- to keep Virginia and New York from being the only states that matter in the original presidential elections.
 
Top