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

Proof that the Electoral College is a disaster for the nation...

All you folks in Texas see hide or hair of either candidate this summer? How about you Californians? New Yorkers? Bostonians? Oregonians? Hawaiians? The sham that is the electoral college has forced each candidate to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince a few thousand people in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote one way or the other. Out of 300 million people, all of it comes down to a population the size of Fresno or Austin across a few states, the rest of us don't matter one bit. And we dare to lecture the world on the values of democracy and direct representation...what a joke.
 

Bo-4

Senator
Yep, it's very sad that we can't all live in swing states. But sadder yet is the corrupt electoral system that encourages such nonsense.

We would have far better voter turnout if one vote counted the same as the next. If one lives in a deep red or deep blue state, why should they vote?

I'll go vote in Idaho even though I know Obama has a snowflakes chance simple out of principle. But it's incredibly depressing.
 

ITALIA

Mayor
All you folks in Texas see hide or hair of either candidate this summer? How about you Californians? New Yorkers? Bostonians? Oregonians? Hawaiians? The sham that is the electoral college has forced each candidate to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince a few thousand people in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote one way or the other. Out of 300 million people, all of it comes down to a population the size of Fresno or Austin across a few states, the rest of us don't matter one bit. And we dare to lecture the world on the values of democracy and direct representation...what a joke.
We see them in California. They come here occasionally to collect some money.
 

trapdoor

Governor
And if it weren't for the electoral college, those of us who live in places like Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, etc., wouldn't have any influence at all. The presidents could be elected simply by carrying a majority in three or four heavily populated states, and the rest of the country could be ignored.
 

ITALIA

Mayor
And if it weren't for the electoral college, those of us who live in places like Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, etc., wouldn't have any influence at all. The presidents could be elected simply by carrying a majority in three or four heavily populated states, and the rest of the country could be ignored.
You just gave the case for being against the electoral college. With the electoral college it is all about a few swing states and the states where the outcome is forgone conclusion are ignored mostly. If the election would be based by popular votes then every state would have to be mined for every vote possible.
 

trapdoor

Governor
You just gave the case for being against the electoral college. With the electoral college it is all about a few swing states and the states where the outcome is forgone conclusion are ignored mostly. If the election would be based by popular votes then every state would have to be mined for every vote possible.
No -- the candidates would simply ignore the states with smaller populations. Their platforms would cater to the interests of the larger states, larger in terms of population. They'd do this for the same reason bank robbers rob banks -- that's where the money is.

The electoral college was designed to balance out this sort of thing, in part to prevent regional strife.
 

ITALIA

Mayor
No -- the candidates would simply ignore the states with smaller populations. Their platforms would cater to the interests of the larger states, larger in terms of population. They'd do this for the same reason bank robbers rob banks -- that's where the money is.

The electoral college was designed to balance out this sort of thing, in part to prevent regional strife.
Just because states have large populations is not a reason to ignore all the other states. No candidate is going to go in a large state and get all the votes. He may get 55% and the other candidate may get 55% in another large state. If a candidate could win the top states, about 10 or 11 states, with 270 electoral votes he could lose the rest of the states by a much greater margin then he won in those 10 or 11 states. You can win California by 1,000 votes and get 55 electoral votes. You win Montana by 1,000 votes and you get 3 electoral votes.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_for_and_against_
 

trapdoor

Governor
Just because states have large populations is not a reason to ignore all the other states. No candidate is going to go in a large state and get all the votes. He may get 55% and the other candidate may get 55% in another large state. If a candidate could win the top states, about 10 or 11 states, with 270 electoral votes he could lose the rest of the states by a much greater margin then he won in those 10 or 11 states. You can win California by 1,000 votes and get 55 electoral votes. You win Montana by 1,000 votes and you get 3 electoral votes.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_for_and_against_
It is up to state legislatures to determine how they apportion their electors. If states wanted to do away with the winner-take-all assignment of electors and go to a proportion of votes model, they could do so.
 

trapdoor

Governor
How's this for proof: if not for the Electoral College, George W. Bush would never have been president.
Even that isn't necessarily true. Someone would have been in opposition to Gore's second term, and that could as easily have been Bush as anyone else.
 

Bo-4

Senator
Even that isn't necessarily true. Someone would have been in opposition to Gore's second term, and that could as easily have been Bush as anyone else.
Trapper, you know better than that. Republicans NEVER run a loser a second time. They are relentlessly brutal to their losers.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I acknowledge that -- but there weren't a lot of better options around, either. Admittedly, it wouldn't have taken much of a candidate to beat Gore.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Trapdoor - your "conventional wisdom" is wrong. You're not alone in this very common misapprehension. I would wager that MOST people are convinced that the electoral college advantages the red states. But...most any objective analysis, suggests the opposite. In the current era, the electoral college actually advantages the blue states and that advantage will only grow in the decades to come.

So...why don't most people know that? Simple....it's not in the Democrats' interest to make note of it.
 
KKKons hate the EC because they're now getting their butts kicked by it...

KKKons hate it? then I like it

Swing states will morph in another generation or two by there's a slim to none chance of Texas, Cali, NY, Florida, Ohio ever becoming less populated in 100 years
 

EatTheRich

President
The Electoral College works to the advantage of small states. The voter-to-elector ratio in Wyoming is about 1/8 that of California., making the Wyomingite's vote about 8 times as weighty. Those small states tend to have more rural areas and thus to be economically and politically backward and thus to vote Republican.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trapdoor - your "conventional wisdom" is wrong. You're not alone in this very common misapprehension. I would wager that MOST people are convinced that the electoral college advantages the red states. But...most any objective analysis, suggests the opposite. In the current era, the electoral college actually advantages the blue states and that advantage will only grow in the decades to come.

So...why don't most people know that? Simple....it's not in the Democrats' interest to make note of it.
If it doesn't have a negative affect on what we now call "blue state" voting, why is it universally blue state voters who want to elimiinate it?

The simple fact of the matter is that the electoral college is intentionally anti-democratic, in the true sense of democracy being rule by the "demos," the people. It is intentionally in place to prevent a tyranny by a coalition of populated states over those with less population -- this was a legitimate concern in 1790, and it is a legitiamte concern still.
 

EatTheRich

President
Why shouldn't we say ... it is intentionally put in place to establish a tyranny by a coalition of underpopulated states over the majority of the country?
 

EatTheRich

President
Sure it is. It is, in your own words, "intentionally anti-democratic." It is intended to prevent rule by the people, also known as consent of the governed, and instead to vest power in the underpopulated states as conceived in direct opposition to the people.
 
Top