The Electoral College

[SalixIncendium]

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the value of the Electoral College.

I'm not a fan of it, and I feel that the popular vote should decide the outcome of a presidential election. In the 2016 election, Clinton actually had well over 2.8 million more votes than Trump, and had we not used the Electoral College, she would have been our president for the last four years.

What are your thoughts? What value, if any, do you find in its existence?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I see positives and negatives, but mostly by far negatives to the Electoral system.

It'd be hard on Republicans though in this modern day to have a popular vote system as I do see there as being a few more Democrats than Republicans. This means that us Democrats could potentially win more often. Trump would have never been elected by the popular vote. He hasn't won by popular vote.

But still, the popular vote would be good for us Democrats.

 

[Polymath257]

The EC was originally designed as a barrier *against* democracy. The concern was that a demagogue would win the popular vote and the EC would help to prevent such an event.

However, when it voted *for* Trump in 2016, it showed that it was unwilling to take that role seriously. It actually voted for a demagogue that lost the popular vote.

By doing this, it lost ALL reason for its existence.

It should be abolished/nullified and we should go to one person/one vote.

 

[Salty Booger]

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the value of the Electoral College.

I'm not a fan of it, and I feel that the popular vote should decide the outcome of a presidential election. In the 2016 election, Clinton actually had well over 2.8 million more votes than Trump, and had we not used the Electoral College, she would have been our president for the last four years.

What are your thoughts? What value, if any, do you find in its existence?

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value. Democracy has value, mob rule is dangerous.

Side Note: I have been listening about the below video while chatting here...interesting. I post it here should anyone be curious.

 

[Polymath257]

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value. Democracy has value, mob rule is dangerous.

Being outvoted is not the same as having no voice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What are your thoughts? What value, if any, do you find in its existence?

Away with it!

 

[Jainarayan]

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value. Democracy has value, mob rule is dangerous

One vote is one vote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value. Democracy has value, mob rule is dangerous.

Only a few states matter as it is. Such as Pennsylvania. Ohio. Florida. These states, with our current system, consistently are the ones who decide the presidency.
So we already have this minority ALWAYS deciding things for everybody else.
And worse, the EC means no one's vote really matter or count, and those who don't vote as their state does has their ballot effectively thrown out the window, and if we say it matter and do the math then the weight of individuals votes to be worth more or less than 1.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value.

Isn't the amount of electors a state has based on its population?

 

[Secret Chief]

All votes should be of equal value. One person, one vote. Oh, and counted.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't the amount of electors a state has based on its population?

Yes and no. The number of electors is the number of senators plus the number of representatives in congress.

The number of representatives is based on population, but every state gets two senators no matter what.

 

[Salty Booger]

Being outvoted is not the same as having no voice.

You are missing the point. Cities like New York, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, etc. would be deciding every presidential election if it were decided by popular vote. The major cities do not represent the whole nation.

 

[Salty Booger]

Isn't the amount of electors a state has based on its population?

I'm not certain, but that would be my guess. I do understand why we have the Electoral Vote. The presidential vote is a national vote involving various communities and cultures in our country.

 

[Salty Booger]

So we already have this minority ALWAYS deciding things for everybody else.

Really? Do those states electoral votes add up to 270?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the value of the Electoral College.

I'm not a fan of it, and I feel that the popular vote should decide the outcome of a presidential election. In the 2016 election, Clinton actually had well over 2.8 million more votes than Trump, and had we not used the Electoral College, she would have been our president for the last four years.

What are your thoughts? What value, if any, do you find in its existence?

From an outsider’s perspective it appears archaic, overly complicated and prone to abuse. If the main goal is to determine who should become president then using the popular vote makes most sense.

 

[Polymath257]

You are missing the point. Cities like New York, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, etc. would be deciding every presidential election if it were decided by popular vote. The major cities do not represent the whole nation.

Well, the point is that the majority should rule. If the rural areas are outvoted, that is simply because there are fewer voters.

The cities may no represent the whole nation. But they do represent the *majority* of the nation.

 

[Salty Booger]

If the main goal is to determine who should become president then using the popular vote makes most sense.

You don't see how the the cities would dominate the vote? Areas of higher populations shouldn't speak for the whole country. It is different when voting in a local election, but in a national election?

 

[crossfire]

You are missing the point. Cities like New York, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, etc. would be deciding every presidential election if it were decided by popular vote. The major cities do not represent the whole nation.

The cities are comprised of widely differing individuals. Cities are not hive-minds.

 

[Polymath257]

Really? Do those states electoral votes add up to 270?

How many times has there been a difference between the majority vote and the EC vote? And which direction has the EC gone each time?

 

[Polymath257]

You don't see how the the cities would dominate the vote? Areas of higher populations shouldn't speak for the whole country. It is different when voting in a local election, but in a national election?

Yes. Areas with higher populations *should* speak because they have the majority. That is what it means to have a democracy: that the majority has the final say.