[Thought Prompt] The Electoral College

[Dad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

 

Time and time again, it's been argued that the Electoral College is an out of date, archaic system that has swung elections to vast extremes.  But the Electoral College has also been used as point of favoritism (when the defending party needs it from either side).  Since roughly the 1880's, the Electoral College has been a mainstay as part of the United States democratic voting system, and continues to decide elections to this date.

 

Are you satisfied with the Electoral College?

 

Why or why not?

 

What changes can be made to the Electoral College that would "fix" it, if need be?

 

Could you, without damaging the voting system, effectively do away with the Electoral College?

 

If there was a proposal to be argued against the Electoral College, what system would you create to replace it?

 

Defend yourselves lads.  Go.

[Delibirb]

The biggest flaw with the Electoral College is it isn't very... transparent. Not in terms of corruption, but in terms of understanding it; it's function, and how it functions, is unclear, as is how it is fair - assuming it is.

 

At least as I understand it.

[Flame Dragon]

I didn't vote this election. Part of that was complacency, I didn't think Trump had any chance of winning. Part of that was laziness, I didn't bother to register and I didn't want to waste hours waiting in a line. Part of it however, is because my vote doesn't matter. I live in NYC. I didn't for a second think Trump would get the state and he didn't. Hillary beating Trump 59% (what she actually won by), 51%, or 80% the outcome is the same. The extra votes don't matter, and that seems incredibly wrong. The same is true for Trump voters, over 2.5 million people voted for Trump in New York state. Their vote, their voice doesn't matter. I've seen people saying "so you want NY and CA deciding the president" and its like, if the democratic vote was spread out more it should suddenly count more? A person's vote shouldn't have a variable value, and thats exactly what the electoral college causes. It makes it such that only a handful of states are actually deciding the election. Only a handful of states are places where a person's voice matters.

[Fusion X. Denver]

The one counter-argument I can think of for keeping the electoral college is that it motivates candidates to campaign in random states like Minnesota or Iowa that aren't as densely populated. If they concentrated their campaigns on the bigger cities, supposedly that's all they'd need to bother with. 

Otherwise, I believe it needs to go. The coasts are typically blue and the middle is typically red and this leads to apathy like in Flame's case as well as granting swing states higher priority than the rest of the country. I believe abolishing it will lead to greater voter turnout and will more accurately reflect the will of the people.

 

If they added a rule that candidates have to campaign in every state at some point or something along those lines, I'd have zero reasons to keeping it around.

[Dad]

The one counter-argument I can think of for keeping the electoral college is that it motivates candidates to campaign in random states like Minnesota or Iowa that aren't as densely populated. If they concentrated their campaigns on the bigger cities, supposedly that's all they'd need to bother with. 

Otherwise, I believe it needs to go. The coasts are typically blue and the middle is typically red and this leads to apathy like in Flame's case as well as granting swing states higher priority than the rest of the country. I believe abolishing it will lead to greater voter turnout and will more accurately reflect the will of the people.

 

If they added a rule that candidates have to campaign in every state at some point or something along those lines, I'd have zero reasons to keeping it around.

 

So how do you fix it?  From population to representation (over or under), where in the Electoral College can you make changes?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I am entirely *for* the Electoral College system. James Madison (a Founding Father) is the main individual to whom the Electoral College system can be accredited.

 

His general idea was to keep factionalism in check, so states that vote unilaterally based on state-wide political interests have less sway than bilateral states in determining the President. As modern examples, California is a blue state and Texas is a red state based on their respective political climates, but Pennsylvania is more of a swing state. California and Texas are thus limited in their ability to determine Presidents, because their respective political climates aren't as conducive to objectivity as Pennsylvania's is.   

[Brinolovania]

I am entirely *for* the Electoral College system. James Madison (a Founding Father) is the main individual to whom the Electoral College system can be accredited.

 

His general idea was to keep factionalism in check, so states that vote unilaterally based on state-wide political interests have less sway than bilateral states in determining the President. As modern examples, California is a blue state and Texas is a red state based on their respective political climates, but Pennsylvania is more of a swing state. California and Texas are thus limited in their ability to determine Presidents, because their respective political climates aren't as conducive to objectivity as Pennsylvania's is.   

That's pretty interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Isn't there kind of a flip side to that, though? To use the Texas example again, Austin (and one or two other areas I think?) in the state that very commonly go blue. Under the electoral system, those people don't get any say whatsoever. That's the problem with the electoral college, it takes minorities from having a small(er) say to having absolutely no say. 

 

I do support moving to a straight-up popular vote system. If that's impossible, though, I think we should at least move to a system where electoral votes are divided up proportionally, like in Nevada and Maine. That seems like a pretty decent compromise, although not perfect.

[vla1ne]

...i could have saved that electoral college post for this thread... damn. well either way, i can say it twice i guess:

 

the electoral college is to balance the smaller states against the larger states, say what you will, but the larger states are not the only ones with importance, and a popular vote only system would do just that, make the larger states have a larger voice than they deserve and make the smaller states unhearable, ( many farming states tend to be far lower population, with vastly different values, yet nobody could say the citizens within didn't provide equal or greater services than those of larger states) you can say every vote would matter, but when bigger cities lean liberal, and smaller cities/towns lean republican, it's an unfair battle to go only by popular vote. so instead, the states hold delegates, which the winner takes upon victory, the winner takes all is likely to make the process as simple as possible. how you divide delegates among candidates would vary insanely every election, and flawed math cold easily skew such divisions, keeping it simple "winner takes all" allows it to retain it's resemblance to popular vote (albeit on the state level), while still remaining fair (the surplus of votes in one state won't skew the results from another) is everybody happy? no, but it's by far fairer than popular vote, by virtue of keeping the bouts on the state level, where each state can speak on it's values without being shouted out by larger states (arguable, california is 55 delegates alone, in comparison to the 5-6 delegates some smaller states get) the delegate sizes possibly need revamping, but at this point in time, could you trust either party to do so without a clear bias?

 

so in sum total, the electoral college is a good system for fairness, because it avoids simple mob rule, but it does indeed need revision to maintain said fairness in the future, which i will think of upon further studying of the individual delegate sizes and delegation practices, since there are some states that i can't remember the system for atm, and it's near 1AM where i live.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You're running to be the president of the United States, not President of California or NY. 

 

The EC is like the senate in that it gives voice to those smaller states that would otherwise be washed away under Cali/FL/NY/TX/PA/IL

 

Any I'd personally wait before calling the PV on this race tbh, there's pockets of red like NoCA that are yet to be counted too

 

Also Military went strong Trump, and those ballots are still incoming 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Except... it literally gives higher impact to some votes than others. If the state has less people, it shouldn't be given extra sway to make up for lack of population. New York isn't deciding the election. The people there are. Just as much as the people everywhere else are.

[Brinolovania]

Except... it literally gives higher impact to some votes than others. If the state has less people, it shouldn't be given extra sway to make up for lack of population. New York isn't deciding the election. The people there are. Just as much as the people everywhere else are.

This is pretty much my stance too. Yes, it will make candidates visit less populous states less often... but that's because there are fewer people there. Democracy is based on the majority and our current system doesn't support that. The electoral college gives some people a louder voice than others, and like I said, it ignores the votes of many people too. Neither idea is perfect, but popular vote at least means that the person most people want is the one who gets chosen.

 

Fun fact btw: I only bothered posting this because I figured I'd let Winter not get triggered by a "silent rep" on his first day back. Because I care <3

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is pretty much my stance too. Yes, it will make candidates visit less populous states less often... but that's because there are fewer people there. Democracy is based on the majority and our current system doesn't support that. The electoral college gives some people a louder voice than others, and like I said, it ignores the votes of many people too. Neither idea is perfect, but popular vote at least means that the person most people want is the one who gets chosen.

 

Fun fact btw: I only bothered posting this because I figured I'd let Winter not get triggered by a "silent rep" on his first day back. Because I care

IDC, this country needs to heal. I'm really happy that President Elect Trump reached out to both Sen. Schumer and and Rep. Pelosi. right after getting his first call from president putin

 

I think there will be a lot of economic overlap with the Sanders wing, and based on what Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders have said today, I do have hope we can finally throw out the gridlock in congress. I've said from the start, President Trump was a life long democrat, and still is a center-left to center-right individual, and that he would work with both sides. I hope y'all will see that soon enough 

 

Both the Senate and House minority leaders have talked about happily supporting Trump on his first major play, the 1 Trillion infrastructure plan for America. The people who are being mum on that are Paul Ryan and the senate Leader. They need to realize, Trump delivered the senate to them. WI senate was supposed to blue this year. No GOP has won WI MI or PA in nearly 30 years. I honestly expect the GOP to cause more problems for Trump than the dems on most issues

 

I mean the senate gives people a larger voice too. Vermont and Cali both get 2

 

Edit:

 

He's also affirming the wall will get built 100% so us Trump supporters have something to look forward to. 

 

If we look at demographics, Trump killed it. He outperformed Romney w/ every minority group and in some rust belt states took a staggering 20% of the AA male vote. That's like a 60 year high. He won Florida Cuban Hispanics, a group that has slowly tended blue (went Obama both times)

 

He also under-performed Romney with White voters, 59%->58% but more than made up that loss with minorities in swing states that mattered (Looking at you FL and PA)

 

He got 7% more with millennials than Romney (30->37%). And he's making asians competitive again. Hillary only won Union workers by 5% There is a new worker's party GOP rising, one that's socially moderate, and economically moderate. This is the party I've been searching for, and I couldn't be more proud of my president elect.

 

Catholics once again predicted the national winner, going +7 for Trump. Ohio and Catholics seem like the best bell-weather on who the president is

 

As someone who is both part Indian and part Russian, President Trump reaching out to both those countries and repairing frosty relationships is really heartwarming for me.

 

Edit 2:

 

Sorry, I realize most of that was off topic, I'm still really kinda gushing over the result.

[Flame Dragon]

You're running to be the president of the United States, not President of California or NY. 

 

The EC is like the senate in that it gives voice to those smaller states that would otherwise be washed away under Cali/FL/NY/TX/PA/IL

 

Any I'd personally wait before calling the PV on this race tbh, there's pockets of red like NoCA that are yet to be counted too

 

Also Military went strong Trump, and those ballots are still incoming

But aren't the smaller states still washed away by the large ones? PA and FL are the 4th and 5th largest states and have a MASSIVE impact on the election. The EC doesn't make the small swing states matter, it makes the large ones matter.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But aren't the smaller states still washed away by the large ones? PA and FL are the 4th and 5th largest states and have a MASSIVE impact on the election. The EC doesn't make the small swing states matter, it makes the large ones matter.

It makes the medium ones with centrist politics matter is the more accurate claim. 

 

I mean it seems to me, the small states were pretty clear how they wanted to vote right?

 

That being said, the GOP shouldn't get too happy about winning the Rustbelt back, there's a very clear blue sunbelt region showing up. If inroads are not made with AA and Hispanic voters fast, we could see the south go blue and the midwest go red. Which isn't a winning battle for the GOP

[Agro]

I think the two best possible ways are either an electoral system where the senators of each state aren't counted towards the state's electoral votes and the amount of votes given to each candidate is proportional, rather than winner-take all OR deciding by popular vote.

The only real reason I can see for the prior, however, is the original purpose of the electoral college: to act as a buffer to stop an uneducated citizenship from electing someone unqualified or deemed dangerous to the institution of the United States. Electoral Voters do have the opportunity to vote whichever way they want come December 19, but, historically, have never gone against the popular vote even once. If there were any election to act as that buffer– to stop the voters from electing someone deemed too dangerous and/or unqualified for the position, it would be this election, so if the electoral college is the same after December 19 as projected on election night, then I can't imagine any reason to keep it around, since it doesn't actually act as that buffer.
 

But aren't the smaller states still washed away by the large ones? PA and FL are the 4th and 5th largest states and have a MASSIVE impact on the election. The EC doesn't make the small swing states matter, it makes the large ones matter.

Electoral Votes are determined by the number of senators and congressmen, so every state has at least 3, even if that isn't proportional to their population. So even the smallest states have more say than they rightly should.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think the two best possible ways are either an electoral system where the senators of each state aren't counted towards the state's electoral votes and the amount of votes given to each candidate is proportional, rather than winner-take all OR deciding by popular vote.

 

The only real reason I can see for the prior, however, is the original purpose of the electoral college: to act as a buffer to stop an uneducated citizenship from electing someone unqualified or deemed dangerous to the institution of the United States. Electoral Voters do have the opportunity to vote whichever way they want come December 19, but, historically, have never gone against the popular vote even once. If there were any election to act as that buffer– to stop the voters from electing someone deemed too dangerous and/or unqualified for the position, it would be this election, so if the electoral college is the same after December 19 as projected on election night, then I can't imagine any reason to keep it around, since it doesn't actually act as that buffer.

 

Electoral Votes are determined by the number of senators and congressmen, so every state has at least 3, even if that isn't proportional to their population. So even the smallest states have more say than they rightly should.

"unqualified or deemed dangerous to the institution of the United States' 

 

In the eyes of 59,937,338 people, this was Hillary Clinton though

 

And in 2 way exit polls he clobbered her, and might even still win the PV...so not sure what the argument is here

[Agro]

"unqualified or deemed dangerous to the institution of the United States' 

 

In the eyes of 59,937,338 people, this was Hillary Clinton though

 

And in 2 way exit polls he clobbered her, and might even still win the PV...so not sure what the argument is here

The argument is that the electoral college has literally never been used for the purpose it was intended to and even now– in a situation where the candidate in question is factually the least qualified candidate for president in history, and of whom national security experts have deemed both unqualified and in certain cases, such as the former head of the CIA, a threat to national security– they likely won't vote against the will of the people. 

 

If the electoral college were to vote against the will of the people when they deemed that person a risk, it wouldn't matter how many people voted for him because that's the point of the electoral college. If the electoral college– even in a situation where there's a candidate who more obviously fits that criteria than even Trump does– still votes the way of the people, then there's clearly no point in having it around to begin with.

 

I understand if you're viewing this argument as "my candidate isn't helped by the electoral college so get rid of it" but it really is more like "the reasons the electoral college was made are virtually obsolete at this point anyway so get rid of it so that no candidate is preferred by the majority of the people but loses the election for no reason."

 

EDIT: It's the same reason the Democratic party really should just get rid of super delegates, they never vote against the will of the voters anyway.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not entirely sure I give the CIA much credit for anything. They've let this country down time and time again. I don't trust them at all

[Sunshine Jesse]

You're running to be the president of the United States, not President of California or NY. 

 

The EC is like the senate in that it gives voice to those smaller states that would otherwise be washed away under Cali/FL/NY/TX/PA/IL

 

Any I'd personally wait before calling the PV on this race tbh, there's pockets of red like NoCA that are yet to be counted too

 

Also Military went strong Trump, and those ballots are still incoming 

didn't you bash the electoral college just a week or so ago?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

didn't you bash the electoral college just a week or so ago?

I think I said Bush v Gore was unfair becuase Jeb cheated in FL

 

Trump ran the tables in the swing states

funking lol, they called NH for HRC when she leads by 3000 votes, but not Michigan for Trump when he leads by 14000

 

Media playing dirty as usual

[VCR_CAT]

Not entirely sure I give the CIA much credit for anything. They've let this country down time and time again. I don't trust them at all

 

A reminder how it's perfectly reasonable to understand why they made the decision they made in 9/11, as I explained in the election thread.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

A reminder how it's perfectly reasonable to understand why they made the decision they made in 9/11, as I explained in the election thread.

Not that, CIA has been doing a lot of regime change that I dislike 

[Sunshine Jesse]

I think I said Bush v Gore was unfair becuase Jeb cheated in FL

 

Trump ran the tables in the swing states

f***ing lol, they called NH for HRC when she leads by 3000 votes, but not Michigan for Trump when he leads by 14000

 

Media playing dirty as usual

 

 

 

I am curious on your views on the Electoral college though. Personally I think it should be done away with so candidates have to appeal to America, not just Florida, Ohio and a few others

 

 

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/358371-results-are-final-2016-election-for-president-of-the-united-states-donald-trump-victory/?p=6943882

 

What do you have to say for yourself?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/358371-results-are-final-2016-election-for-president-of-the-united-states-donald-trump-victory/?p=6943882

 

What do you have to say for yourself?

Wiser people than me have showed me the reasoning behind the EC

[Sunshine Jesse]

aka "It changed the moment my candidate won," I bet.

 

Trump whined about it too at the very prospect of Obama winning the EC and losing the PV. Then, he deleted the tweets where he did whine, what do you have to say regarding that?