The Electoral College - why does it still determine elections?


Recommended Posts

Steven P.

 

Many Americans say it's an unfair system rife with gerrymandering, so why does it still determine the outcome of elections?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Emn1ty
8 hours ago, Steven P. said:

Many Americans say it's an unfair system rife with gerrymandering, so why does it still determine the outcome of elections?

Inverse this and do it by population, then you have the same problem. Population centers dictating the lives of the rest of the nation.

 

Gerrymandering is it's own problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Inverse this and do it by population, then you have the same problem. Population centers dictating the lives of the rest of the nation.

 

Gerrymandering is it's own problem.

In regards to elections, so?  Popular vote should be the ruling factor in electing a president. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
8 hours ago, Steven P. said:

 

Many Americans say it's an unfair system rife with gerrymandering, so why does it still determine the outcome of elections?

It's Constitutionally mandated and would require an Amendment to get rid of (which isn't gonna happen unfortunately).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
8 minutes ago, primortal said:

In regards to elections, so?  Popular vote should be the ruling factor in electing a president. 

i used to think the same thing until one looks at recent elections. As already mentioned, the major population centers in the US shouldnt get to decide for the rest of the country. Why should LA or NY get to decide what's best for all the rural, less populated cities and counties in the US?

 

case in point - this past election, biden won 13% of all US counties in the US. 87% of counties voted for trump. Where i live, Ohio, only the major cities voted for Biden. that's about 6 counties out of 88.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.

Another example would be to look at two blue states - CA and NY. If one took NYC out of the state of NY, then NY would be a red state. Instead, the rest of NY has to live by the rules set by NYC and a democratic governor. Same with CA. if you remove SF and LA, then CA is a red state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
7 minutes ago, Jason S. said:

i used to think the same thing until one looks at recent elections. As already mentioned, the major population centers in the US shouldnt get to decide for the rest of the country. Why should LA or NY get to decide what's best for all the rural, less populated cities and counties in the US?

 

case in point - this past election, biden won 13% of all US counties in the US. 87% of counties voted for trump. Where i live, Ohio, only the major cities voted for Biden. that's about 6 counties out of 88.

Remove states/counties out of the equation and just look at the population as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
20 minutes ago, primortal said:

In regards to elections, so?  Popular vote should be the ruling factor in electing a president. 

This would be the case if we were a democracy however as a Democratic Republic things work a bit differently.  We vote for representatives and senators within each state based on popular vote. Locally we vote by popular vote.  However if you consider the population densities of the nation as a whole and the voting block represented by the majority of urban centers you will quickly see how we would become a one party system for the president if not for the Electoral College. The rural and primarily interior of the nation would no longer have any influence -  at all. Understanding this potential, our founding fathers setup a system to ensure the protection of the minority.  

 

One change that would however persist the EC yet promote a more balanced system would be the elimination of the winner takes all rules states have enacted and more to a proportional EC distribution. The one thing most egregious however are these states that now want to assign all EC votes to the winner of the popular vote regardless of their own voting totals. That to me is the most dangerous step possible as it could potentially disenfranchise the majority of the voters in a state.  Assuming for a moment, California or New York were to agree to this plan and the popular vote nationally went to a republican even though the state voted largely for the democratic candidate.

 

As flawed as the process seems, the solution isn't any better and as others have said, requires a constitutional amendment to change and I don't see that happening.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
3 minutes ago, primortal said:

Remove states/counties out of the equation and just look at the population as a whole.

What's your point? So people from NYC know what's best for the lives of those in rural america?

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
9 hours ago, Steven P. said:

 

Many Americans say it's an unfair system rife with gerrymandering, so why does it still determine the outcome of elections?

Steve, what the maps do not show is the distribution of the members of the House of Representatives. House seats are determined by population so California has WAY more representation than Wyoming - as it should be. Each state gets representatives as a portion of the population and two senators.  Both the House and the Senate have separate powers within the government and bill need to pass in each to proceed to the President so the picture of how the process works is very skewed in just those two maps.  This apportioning of representatives districts however is also where the gerrymandering comes into play - and that's a politically dishonest game played equally by both sides. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
1 minute ago, Biscuits Brown said:

However if you consider the population densities of the nation as a whole and the voting block represented by the majority of urban centers you will quickly see how we would become a one party system for the president if not for the Electoral College. The rural and primarily interior of the nation would no longer have any influence -  at all. Understanding this potential, our founding fathers setup a system to ensure the protection of the minority.  

That's the problem.  If one party dominates the other party, it shows that there's a fundamental problem with a party that cannot muster the votes of the masses to secure a win.   The Electoral College shouldn't be a "give me" for the failing party.

 

If you want to keep the Electoral College, there should be one "vote" per-state.  Right now, the candidate focuses only on the states that have the highest Electoral College "votes" and that disenfranchises those states that have a small number of "votes".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
6 minutes ago, primortal said:

That's the problem.  If one party dominates the other party, it shows that there's a fundamental problem with a party that cannot muster the votes of the masses to secure a win.   The Electoral College shouldn't be a "give me" for the failing party.

 

If you want to keep the Electoral College, there should be one "vote" per-state.  Right now, the candidate focuses only on the states that have the highest Electoral College "votes" and that disenfranchises those states that have a small number of "votes".

 

 

You seem to think we live in a democracy or you don't understand the Constitution (or somehow think we just get to ignore the parts we don't agree with).  We already have one party that essentially 'buys' their voting block with tax payer funded entitlements, are you suggesting the other side do the same? Hate to break it to you but we can't afford what we have now so I can't see that working in the long term.

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
14 minutes ago, Jason S. said:

What's your point? So people from NYC know what's best for the lives of those in rural america?

Forget NYC or NY or LA or CA....

 

For the 2020 election there was total of what 155millon votes cast.  Out of that 81 million were cast for Biden.  Just looking at the number "81 million" can you tell how many votes came from NYC, NY, LA or CA?  No.  This is what I'm saying.  81 million people vote for Biden and going with the "popular" vote = winner.

 

Now I can understand your concern if the voting was just centric to NY and that NYC dictates what's best for NY as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
3 minutes ago, Biscuits Brown said:

You seem to think we live in a democracy or you don't understand the Constitution (or somehow think we just get to ignore the parts we don't agree with). 

 

  

I do understand the Constitution.  But the Electoral College was a process developed in the days of candle power and low uneducated population and it's time for a change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

You guys can fix your broken system much easier than rethinking the electoral college etc. Just remove the money from the equation and implement term limits for ALL representatives.  NO lobbying at all, NO donations from organisations OR people, PERIOD.  Each candidate gets a set budget from the federal government and cannot exceed that budget and have strict time limits on when they can campaign.  Get rid of the glitzy BS and start taking politics seriously.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown

 

2 minutes ago, primortal said:

Forget NYC or NY or LA or CA....

 

For the 2020 election there was total of what 155millon votes cast.  Out of that 81 million were cast for Biden.  Just looking at the number "81 million" can you tell how many votes came from NYC, NY, LA or CA?  No.  This is what I'm saying.  81 million people vote for Biden and going with the "popular" vote = winner.

 

Now I can understand you concern if the voting was just centric to NY and that NYC dictates what's best for NY as a whole.

So you'd be OK living in North Dakota or Wyoming or Montana or Oklahoma (or whatever interior state you want to pick) knowing that if you go down to vote for a republican you just stood in line to waste your time?   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan
Just now, Biscuits Brown said:

 

So you'd be OK living in North Dakota or Wyoming or Montana or Oklahoma (or whatever interior state you want to pick) knowing that if you go down to vote for a republican you just stood in line to waste your time?   

 

How is that any different to living in red or blue states, as you have now?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
Just now, FloatingFatMan said:

You guys can fix your broken system much easier than rethinking the electoral college etc. Just remove the money from the equation and implement term limits for ALL representatives.  NO lobbying at all, NO donations from organisations OR people, PERIOD.  Each candidate gets a set budget from the federal government and cannot exceed that budget and have strict time limits on when they can campaign.  Get rid of the glitzy BS and start taking politics seriously.

I agree with this 100% and wish I would live to see the day this happens... sadly I'm not going to live forever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

You guys can fix your broken system much easier than rethinking the electoral college etc. Just remove the money from the equation and implement term limits for ALL representatives.  NO lobbying at all, NO donations from organisations OR people, PERIOD.  Each candidate gets a set budget from the federal government and cannot exceed that budget and have strict time limits on when they can campaign.  Get rid of the glitzy BS and start taking politics seriously.

i love this idea! (in theory) but it'll never work b/c those in power have to vote on those decisions, and we all know that wont happen. 😂

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Biscuits Brown
6 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

How is that any different to living in red or blue states, as you have now?

I see your point, and the winner take all EC delegates persist this problem.  Consider we really don't have blue states, we have blue regions and those regions are made up of the major population density centers. What if London had enough voting power within the entire UK because of its voting block that it's always going to vote for team purple and therefore team purple never loses.  So for the rest of your life, regardless of where you are, if you don't support team purple, you can never win. What then is the motivation to vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
+primortal
24 minutes ago, Biscuits Brown said:

I see your point, and the winner take all EC delegates persist this problem.  Consider we really don't have blue states, we have blue regions and those regions are made up of the major population density centers. What if London had enough voting power within the entire UK because of its voting block that it's always going to vote for team purple and therefore team purple never loses.  So for the rest of your life, regardless of where you are, if you don't support team purple, you can never win. What then is the motivation to vote?

We have this now; it's called the independent voters.  They know their candidate will never win but that still vote for them anyhow.

 

If a party has nothing to offer ways to improve peoples lives why should I vote for them?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hagjohn
On 22/04/2021 at 14:02, primortal said:

We have this now; it's called the independent voters.  They know their candidate will never win but that still vote for them anyhow.

 

If a party has nothing to offer ways to improve peoples lives why should I vote for them?

 

Independent voters do not align themselves with a party, so I'm not sure what "their candidate will never win" means.  They will vote for either a democrat, republican or a 3rd party. Maybe you are talking about the Independent party voters but they are not considered the group we call "independent voters".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.