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

[CJD]

(04-02-2019, 09:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You mean like the way NY contains one of our greatest cultural, artistic, and financial capitals and Mississippi is full of uneducated and knocked-up teens?

Comments like this are the evidence used in the primary argument for keeping the EC, for what it's worth.

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 10:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Comments like this are the evidence used in the primary argument for keeping the EC, for what it's worth.

True, those knocked-up teens and their spawn are the future of our country.  Alas, my race has been run.

[*michaelsean*]

Each state picks who they want for President. If you don’t like the extra two votes each state gets then take them away. Hillary still loses.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-02-2019, 10:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Each state picks who they want for President. If you don’t like the extra two votes each state gets then take them away. Hillary still loses.

Its not about Hillary winning or losing. Its about a method that is dumb as shit. 

Who all was allowed to vote and how many states were there when this was written?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-02-2019, 10:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its not about Hillary winning or losing. Its about a method that is dumb as shit. 

Who all was allowed to vote and how many states were there when this was written?

Of course it is. Or Trump winning. Whichever you prefer.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-02-2019, 07:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

The whole point was to give people in rural areas the same voice as people in highly populated areas.  What about that is so hard to understand?  Ancient Greece died via the City State, are we to do the same?

[*michaelsean*]

(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?

Dems have won a majority twice in 53 year. 3 times in 65 years.

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 10:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dems have won a majority twice in 53 year.  3 times in 65 years.

I was talking popular vote.  Republicans won it in 2004 and 1988, the Democrats have won it 4 of the past 5 elections.  Look, it doesn't matter how people count votes, because my candidates aren't winning, but when people talk about the merits of the EC it always seem to be a D vs R sort of argument and the way the popular vote has shaken out lately fuels my cynicism.

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 10:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The whole point was to give people in rural areas the same voice as people in highly populated areas.  What about that is so hard to understand?  Ancient Greece died via the City State, are we to do the same?

Which framer stated this?

Also, we do not have the same system they designed. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 08:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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)  

You're arguing that the EC wasn't a factor because we have always had the EC and that candidate know this going into the election and it was they campaigned with that in mind... so you're actually arguing it was the primary factor. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your vote counts the same as mine. The larger population has the larger say Nationally. However, you suggestion that a popular vote would cause candidate to campaign more wide spread is a notion I whole heartedly disagree with.

I totally ignore the smaller population states and focus solely on the more populous.

This is false. 

Wyoming gets 1 EC vote for every 192,579 citizens.

California gets 1 for every 719,273 citizens.

So every 1 voter in Wyoming counts for 3.7 voters in California. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 10:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're arguing that the EC wasn't a factor because we have always had the EC and that candidate know this going into the election and it was they campaigned with that in mind... so you're actually arguing it was the primary factor. 

I must admit you've lost me with this one. 

Can anyone help me out?

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 10:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Comments like this are the evidence used in the primary argument for keeping the EC, for what it's worth.

If there's more like you, the conservative may soon be in trouble. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit you've lost me with this one. 

Can anyone help me out?

translation: you argued the EC wasn't a factor because it was a factor. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 10:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: translation: you argued the EC wasn't a factor because it was a factor. 

Hell, I didn't even know I did that. I thought I was arguing the Popular was not a factor. Pretty sure the EC was the only factor. 

[BmorePat87]

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

It's closer to 4.

[Goalpost]

So would Dems change their own Super Delegate system in the primaries, since every vote seems to count now?

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I didn't even know I did that. I thought I was arguing the Popular was not a factor. Pretty sure the EC was the only factor. 

You used the word "it" multiple times. Did you mean "popular vote" because I read it as you discussing "electoral college". 



If you meant popular vote then disregard my replies. I get what you're saying.  :andy: 

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 10:58 PM)Goalpost Wrote: So would Dems change their own Super Delegate system in the primaries, since every vote seems to count now?

They should, but neither party's primary is a truly democratic process in that sense. Both should be. Straight up primaries, none of this later state delegate convention shit where non binding delegates can mess it up. All delegates vote the way their state went. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-02-2019, 10:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Which framer stated this?

Also, we do not have the same system they designed. 

James Wilson of Pennsylvania.