How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[BmorePat87]

A thought I had yesterday. With the continued population shifts, it is expected that 2/3rd's of the country will reside in 1/3rd of the states in the next few decades, giving incredible power to a small minority of the country. The President could be elected with 10 million less votes and a filibuster proof Senate majority could exist, representing only 30% of the nation. This would have implications for the Supreme Court, putting control of 2.5 branches in the hands of very few people.

Would one candidate having 5,000,000 less votes cause you to finally think that the Electoral College is not a good means of electing the President in the modern US? 10,000,000? 20,000,000? Or would you always be sold on this?

[*bfine32*]

I hate to be "that guy" that chooses none of the above, so I went with one.

If Congress passes a law that abolishes the EC and relies solely on popular vote; I' d follow the rules.

My issue is: The last couple years folks have been bringing in up as a legitimate factor to throw shade at an event, in which, it was not a legitimate factor.

[Belsnickel]

The EC isn't a democratic institution. Most of the arguments in favor of the EC are highly flawed and it would give more power to individual voters to go to a direct vote.

It's why I support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I hate to be "that guy" that chooses none of the above, so I went with one.

If Congress passes a law that abolishes the EC and relies solely on popular vote; I' d follow the rules.

Good call, I can no longer add options, but if anyone has an opinion not stated, they could elaborate on it down here. 

Quote:My issue is: The last couple years folks have been bringing in up as a legitimate factor to throw shade at an event, in which, it was not a legitimate factor.

Care to elaborate? 

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 07:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The EC isn't a democratic institution. Most of the arguments in favor of the EC are highly flawed and it would give more power to individual voters to go to a direct vote.

It's why I support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

One thing I have noticed is people tend to use anachronisms to defend it, presenting arguments not relevant to 1787-91. 

There also seems to be a flaw in arguing that a system that values all voters equally would be more discriminatory than a system that values some voters more than other. "In order for less people in smaller states to matter, we should ignore more people in bigger states" is the crux of it. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 07:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Good call, I can no longer add options, but if anyone has an opinion not stated, they could elaborate on it down here. 





Care to elaborate? 

Our last National Election: Not one word of how bad the EC is. You, yourself told me it would be a blowout. But as soon as POTUS is elected using the EC, folks come out of the woodwork to try to taint it because he didn't win a metric we were not measuring. 

Personally I have no problem with the EC; as I assume the framers had their reasons and they've been shown to be pretty sharp. But if this Congress wants to go against their plan and has a rational reasoning, then I likewise have 0 issue. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Our last National Election: Not one word of how bad the EC is. You, yourself told me it would be a blowout. But as soon as POTUS is elected using the EC, folks come out of the woodwork to try to taint it because he didn't win a metric we were not measuring. 

Personally I have no problem with the EC; as I assume the framers had their reasons and they've been shown to be pretty sharp. But if this Congress wants to go against their plan and has a rational reasoning, then I likewise have 0 issue. 

The contemporary case against the Electoral College has been talked about for a while, particularly after 2001. The idea that someone could lose by millions of votes and still win the EC was seen as an incredibly unlikely scenario. It happened though. Clinton had 3 million more people vote for her but lost because 108,000 people in 3 states didn't vote for her. The chances of that are very narrow.

It certainly was a legitimate factor in the election and worth noting.

[NATI BENGALS]

What would it take? One of the shittiest presidents of all time (W) winning because of it. Followed up not long after by an immoral conman winning because of it.

If those two things didnt happen. The fact i like democracy and think our votes should matter. Its bullshit all around. Nobody's vote should be worth more than anyone else's and that is exactly what it does.

[NATI BENGALS]

Kind of related. How is it that the living human/turtle ejaculate from KY is the second most powerful person in the country? Why is it so many thousands of assholes from KY pick some dude and he has basically the final say of an entire branch of our government.

Broke ass shit

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 07:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The contemporary case against the Electoral College has been talked about for a while, particularly after 2001. The idea that someone could lose by millions of votes and still win the EC was seen as an incredibly unlikely scenario. It happened though. Clinton had 3 million more people vote for her but lost because 108,000 people in 3 states didn't vote for her. The chances of that are very narrow.

It certainly was a legitimate factor in the election and worth noting.

It was only a legitimate factor in the last election because Monday Morning QBs made it so. Perhaps it has recieved a little more attention than "noting". 

You cannot (IMO) point to a factor that was not part of the dynamic and say "see this is a legitimate factor". Every candidate (their strategists) in that election ran knowing how the EC works and they campaigned accordingly. It's just like stating the Buffalo's victory against Miami should be called into question because Miami had more yards and that was a legitimate factor that should be noted in the outcome . Make the rules before the game the team with the most yards wins and you have no issue, but go into the game knowing the team with the most points wins, then total yard is moot (aka not legitimate)  

[JustWinBaby]

State rights matter. That's why we have the Senate. Far too much of "the federal govt should do this" instead of "my state and local govt should do this". If you don't like your overly liberal or conservative hood, you can always move to somewhere more palatable. Yeah, I have a problem with the majority, or even plurality, using the federal govt to dictate how the entire country should live.

Also, in your example, I believe the House of Representatives is re-apportioned with the census every 10 years. So, in fact, your 1/3 of states with 2/3 the people have a little over 60% of the electoral votes, which is not a huge gap relative to 2/3 the population. And regional/local/cultural issues do factor heavily in voting, so perhaps the "one person one vote" is not as imbalanced as perceived.

I don't see what continues to be so complicated about this subject. The House is proportionate representation, the Senate is equal representation for the states, and POTUS is an average of the two weighted toward proportionate representation. People who want to do away with the EC are basically saying states shouldn't matter.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 08:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What would it take? One of the shittiest presidents of all time (W) winning because of it. Followed up not long after by an immoral conman winning because of it.

If those two things didnt happen. The fact i like democracy and think our votes should matter. Its bullshit all around. Nobody's vote should be worth more than anyone else's and that is exactly what it does.

Let's assume (not too far fetched of an assumption) that we voted for different candidates. How much more was my vote worth than yours? 

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 08:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: State rights matter. That's why we have the Senate. Far too much of "the federal govt should do this" instead of "my state and local govt should do this". If you don't like your overly liberal or conservative hood, you can always move to somewhere more palatable. Yeah, I have a problem with the majority, or even plurality, using the federal govt to dictate how the entire country should live.

Also, in your example, I believe the House of Representatives is re-apportioned with the census every 10 years. So, in fact, your 1/3 of states with 2/3 the people have a little over 60% of the electoral votes, which is not a huge gap relative to 2/3 the population. And regional/local/cultural issues do factor heavily in voting, so perhaps the "one person one vote" is not as imbalanced as perceived.

I don't see what continues to be so complicated about this subject. The House is proportionate representation, the Senate is equal representation for the states, and POTUS is an average of the two weighted toward proportionate representation. People who want to do away with the EC are basically saying states shouldn't matter.

When it comes to electing the POTUS, they shouldn't.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When it comes to electing the POTUS, they shouldn't.

Do Montana and California have the same number of EC votes?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-02-2019, 09:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When it comes to electing the POTUS, they shouldn't.

Why not? 

It doesn't seem like an either/or to me.  Either you favor abolishing the Senate, or you agree with the EC as it stands.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 09:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do Montana and California have the same number of EC votes?

Nope, but it takes two Californians to every one Montanan for their EC votes.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 09:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why not? 

It doesn't seem like an either/or to me.  Either you favor abolishing the Senate, or you agree with the EC as it stands.

You said it doesn't seem like an either/or, and then made it an either/or.

As for why not, because the POTUS isn't in charge of the states, it's in charge of a federal bureaucracy, a central government. Representation of the states occurs in the legislature.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, but it takes two Californians to every one Montanan for their EC votes.

So the say is weighted? I just disagree with the notion that each state shouldn't have a say; regardless how big or small, when we elect a President of the United States.

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 09:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, but it takes two Californians to every one Montanan for their EC votes.

Yeah, but wouldn't giving everyone an equal say in the presidency be like...fascism or something?


Anyways, Republicans have won the popular vote twice in the past 30 years, so this is just another one of those bi-partisan issues, isn't it?

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, but wouldn't giving everyone an equal say in the presidency be like...fascism or something?


Anyways, Republicans have won the popular vote twice in the past 30 years, so this is just another one of those bi-partisan issues, isn't it?

Everyone has an equal say. Your say was just the same as mine; unless someone stopped you at the poll and told you differently.