Yes 0% 0 votes No 0% 0 votes
-
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:03 PM)
While I can't say that the EC is fraudulent, it is certainly broken, unfair, and unjust. It's an antiquated system based on a combination of the Founders' inexperience in the matter, distrust of leadership, and an ill-informed electorate. The system was thrown together in the name of compromise because Congress couldn't agree on any other system due to various camps being dead set in their ways.
One such camp was unwilling to allow Congress to elect the President for fear of loyalties and favours being leveraged to swing the election. The other primary camp was against letting the American people vote due to the virtual impossibility to get the needed information out to the people for them to make an informed and educated decision.
As I'm sure you are all aware, the EC, made of up a fixed number of electorates from each state, is formed every four years to vote for the President on behalf of the people they represent. While there is no serious issue with the EC on its face, the problem lies within the ratios of EC representatives to population per state.
In other words, California, with a population of 39.5 million people has a total of 55 EC representatives whereas Wyoming, with a population of 579 thousand has 3 EC representatives. This means there are 68.2 Californians per 1 Wyomingite, but there are only 18.3 Californian EC representatives per every 1 Wyomingite's EC representative. That means each Californian vote is worth approximately 27% of a Wyomingite vote.
The EC (and voting districts) should absolutely be abolished and replaced with a simple popular vote where votes are worth exactly the same from person to person and state to state. The systems for electing based on the popular vote are already in place as the individual states already count and report individual votes to the Federal Government. All that's needed is to elect based on that rather than on the votes of EC representatives who hold an unfair number of votes per population.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
𝐸𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝑅𝑒𝓃𝑒—𝒫𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒
— 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:13 PM)Unfortunately the GOP will never let the electoral college go because if abolished and replaced with a pure popular vote they would likely never win another general election.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:24 PM)
Agreed. They will dig in like ticks on this. The only thing the DNC can hope for is a majority in the House and Senate and a Democratic POTUS. Democrats don't get many opportunities where they hold all three and so, it should be addressed as soon as the next chance rolls around
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
𝐸𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝑅𝑒𝓃𝑒—𝒫𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒
— 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:39 PM)They also claim a popular vote would cause big cities to decide elections despite the fact that the top 20 most populous U.S cities added together barely scrape 10% of the Nation’s population.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:52 PM)
You make a valid point about that. It shouldn't even be an argument, though. Under no circumstances should a person's vote be worth more or less than another person's vote just because of where they live. If the majority of a population wants something, that's just how it should be. "We the people" decide, not "We the few in number, but worth more in voting power people" decide.
Obviously, I lean left based on my political statements from previous threads, but there was a time when I was more right-leaning and even then, I was for the expungement of the EC. Fairness is a cold, hard, numbered fact in this case and no political ideology changes that.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:50 PM)
"But…but…California…New York City…."
Well, I hate to break it to you, but if the popular vote goes toward Democratic candidates, most of the people in the country want a Democratic president. Their place of residence has nothing to do with it.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 03:55 PM)
No, that's not the point of the electoral college. It spreads power out more evenly between urban areas and rural areas. It forces politicians to campaign over the whole nation and address everyone's issues.
You do realize the U.S. is a federal republic, right? Power is decentralized by giving equal authority between the 50 states and Washington. The electoral college maintains that.
It has nothing to do with fear of us city folks.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:00 PM)
The electoral college gives less populous states an unequal amount of power, as stated in Chase's statement above.
We can do better than the electoral college. Shithole, Kentucky should not have triple the voice of Los Angeles, California.
Politicians already focus the vast majority of their campaigns on swing states.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:21 PM)
And to your last point, if everyone's votes were worth the same, politicians would likely spend even more time campaigning around since there would be very few places that would be 100% behind a certain party. They would no longer have the safety net of gerrymandered districts carrying votes in states with an unfair voting advantage.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
-
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:49 PM)
Gerrymandering, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means to "divide or arrange (a territorial unit) into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage". This is absolutely used in the presidential election since individual votes are pooled into a district vote, which is pooled into the state's EC vote, which is pooled, rather unfairly, into the vote to decide who represents the country as a whole.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:30 PM)
That would be true if electors truly had any power independent from the vote of the constituents in their district. Very few electors have ever tried to vote opposite of the voters. It's really a non-issue.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
MooseIndian — 5 years ago(August 15, 2020 09:00 AM)
You ****ing idiot Gerrymandering only applies to House of rep districts. It has nothing to do with anything else. Also, it should be noted the man himself pronounced his name as GAry with a hard G.
….out of darkness, out of mind, cast down into the Halls of the Blind! -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:23 PM)
You miss the point. The U.S. is not a centralized state. Again, it's a federal republic. That means power is diffused. States have rights which can't be overrode by the central government. Constitutionally it is 50 different entities.
It doesn't matter Kentucky versus California. That's irrelevant under a federal system. That's like saying in the U.N. it's unfair for the U.S. with 300 million people to have one vote in the General Assembly and for Ireland with 5 million people to also have one vote in the General Assembly.
Straight democracy is basically mob rule, majority is always right and the rights of the minority are irrelevant. That is not the system the United States was founded upon. Again, it's a federal republic, not a fascist system with all power centralized. Power is diffused. Who gives a rat's ass about comparing Kentucky to California? It's irrelevant.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:26 PM)
Who gives a rat's ass about comparing Kentucky to California?
Conservatives.
You miss the point that the EC is flawed and, to spite the majority, grants all the power to the minority.
The same people who support this are the people who lose their **** over gender-neutral bathrooms (which already exist) because .001% oF tHe PoPuLaTiOn.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:33 PM)
Currently the system favors Republicans. Down the line it may favor Democrats. The system can't be based on fluctuations at any given moment in history. Again, it's federal. In 50 years small states may favor Democrats. That's not the issue.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:16 PM)
The issue is disproportionate amounts of power being given to states whose interests are not reflective of the needs of the greater population. It doesn't matter which way they swing politically. Whether Republican, Democrat, or Pastafarian, two people in Wyoming should not have the voice of eight Californians.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:27 PM)
I would say that, for example, agricultural issues in a desolate state such as North Dakota, are just as or more important than traffic congestion in Los Angeles.
If you look at a population density map, the majority of the population is huddled on a relatively small area of land. The Electoral College also gives important geographic representation. It would be unwise to allow agricultural issues which affect the majority of the nation geographically, to be given a backseat to urban issues.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
MovieBROManCin2 — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:33 PM)
Reconciling the fact that you just compared an entire state to a city/county…why does one individuals vote count for more in the rural state as compared to the vote of the individual in a populated city?
Top notch gaslighting though -
DrakeStraw — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 07:05 PM)
Avatar Lives Matter …
… you just compared an entire state to a city/county …
How about I compare SoCal against New England? The six largest counties rank for rank are all bigger than the states of New England, either by population or area. That gives New England way to much political clout, IMO.
[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]
&
nbsp;