The Electoral College Resolution

[Daemon Sophic]

You might want to reconsider that.

Partially agreed. When your opponent is truly bad and dangerous if elected, then you want to be able to point out those detrimental attributes to prospective voters.

The “fake news” part is another issue. While someone did point out that they get quickly fact checked, it is also true that the rumors fly faster than facts, and modern media relies more on quantity than on quality.
While freedom of speech should never be touched, a good president and congress (and SCOTUS) need to address and regulate what makes real news vs “fake news”. And they need to do it very soon. Apparently the industry isn’t going to do it themselves.

 

[Miken]

The Electoral College system was intended against ignoring the diverse cultures of the states. States with lower population levels are often the providers of food for the more populated states. Even within states, this is generally the case, such as New York. That is one example of the dependence of some states and regions on others that would like to disenfranchise them.

Diversity and the rights of minorities are major buzzwords for one side of the political spectrum. But apparently not if it favors the other side. Ending excess population growth used to be a key tenet of one side as well. Now it is politically beneficial to maximize population growth. Eliminating the electoral system would make it even more beneficial.

Making the viewpoint of the majority of people the only one empowered viewpoint of a diverse nation is a questionable approach. Presidential candidates would not even bother campaigning in low population states that in general possess cultural values not identical with the more populous states. Or is that the intent? Just be careful what you wish for.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As written the National Popular Vote bill causes more problems than it solves, however if it stipulated ranked choice voting I would be all over it. That would bring in the possibility of third parties. As it is written, it simply lets the cities be bullies in everything and lets candidates ignore the outsiders. But for ranked choice voting I would let that go. Imagine if we could actually get a third party in.

 

[bobhikes]

By just respecting the majority of the voters. What a terribly silly thing to do.

The electoral college was set up for a valid reason. The framers knew that it wouldn't always represent the majority.

 

[bobhikes]

No. States wouldn't be important.

Sure they would. States like Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota would be bypassed and good luck getting federal aid.

 

[bobhikes]

Getting rid of the electoral college makes it so that one does not need to try to "win" a state. One only needs to convince the majority of the U.S..


From my point of view there is one good thing about the electoral college. If one lives in a very blue or very red state one is spared endless campaign adds for the Presidency. It is almost as if no one is running for President.

I don't watch TV anymore so don't have that problem. There are going to be states you are going to avoid for lack of population. See previous post.

 

[bobhikes]

Um. I think you should check your math there.

But also, with a popular vote states are irrelevant. That’s the whole point. Addresses should not matter, people should. One person, one vote. We do this for every other election at every other level. Why should the presidential election be any different?

States that have minimum populations will be completely ignored and have no power in your popular government.

 

[Koldo]

Sure they would. States like Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota would be bypassed and good luck getting federal aid.

It wouldn't be a good idea to completely ignore any State. Often enough the difference between winning or losing is a few million votes.

 

[Left Coast]

States that have minimum populations will be completely ignored and have no power in your popular government.

States, again, are irrelevant. Every citizen should have equal power. Which is what a popular vote ensures.

We recognize the obvious fairness of that logic for every other elected office.

 

[Subduction Zone]

States that have minimum populations will be completely ignored and have no power in your popular government.

Simply not so. This election is very close, even on the popular vote level. A candidate that ignored the small states could easily find that would cost him in a close election.

 

[Twilight Hue]

States, again, are irrelevant. Every citizen should have equal power. Which is what a popular vote ensures.

We recognize the obvious fairness of that logic for every other elected office.

Bs. We need states rights. I don't care for homogenous centralized urban cityscapes with the bulk of the population dictating national policy for farmers and rural towns and villages where such policies have no business there.

 

[Left Coast]

Bs. We need states rights. I don't care for homogenous centralized urban cityscapes with the bulk of the population dictating national policy for farmers and rural towns and villages.

And yet I'm assuming you don't want an electoral college for every state, do you? For every county and city? In each of those situations, the people who live in population centers have a greater influence on election outcomes, because that's where more people live. Why would we give preferential treatment to people's votes based on their address? In every case, we recognize the obvious fairness of one person having one vote, same as everyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bs. We need states rights. I don't care for homogenous centralized urban cityscapes with the bulk of the population dictating national policy for farmers and rural towns and villages where such policies have no business there.

I am for states' rights too. But it should not be at the cost of making elections undemocratic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am for states' rights too. But it should not be at the cost of making elections undemocratic.

If there were no faithless electors, there wouldn't be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

By just respecting the majority of the voters. What a terribly silly thing to do.

By just disrespecting the minority of the voters. What a terribly smart thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there were no faithless electors, there wouldn't be.

Incorrect. The EC is inherently undemocratic. Trump would have lost last time around in a democratic election.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By just disrespecting the minority of the voters. What a terribly smart thing to do.

Now this makes no sense at all. It appears that you think disrespecting the majority of voters is okay.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The electoral college was set up for a valid reason. The framers knew that it wouldn't always represent the majority.

^ particularly given that their laborers were not counted as citizens.

 

[Revoltingest]

Incorrect. The EC is inherently undemocratic. Trump would have lost last time around in a democratic election.

The EC is one flavor of democracy, which isn't some strictly
singularly defined system. It has its advantages & disadvantages
over a popular vote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

^ particularly given that their laborers were not counter as citizens.

Actually slaves were not counted as full citizens. If they were freed they would have been fully counted. The counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person was not an attack on black people, It was an attack on slavery. It was argued that if they were not free then counting them as votes only gives power to their masters and not to the slaves themselves.