You’ve said this in about ten posts so far. Care to explain how you’d do it differently? The insinuations get tired when you don’t propose or express what you’d want to supersede it. So say it, do you want the electoral college dissolved and the popular vote to take over?
I’ll certainly say that I wish that we’d replace the EC with popular vote. Every American’s vote, regardless of which state they live in, should count the same.
Bear with me, I’m a little slow. Do Non-Racist Trump voters actually wonder why they’re getting shit about racism? Do they care?
For some strange reason, it reminds me of some clickbaity stuff I’m seeing a lot of recently:
“XXXX enraged by comments from YYYY” but the article shows no reaction or comment by XXXX
Because of this election or because you think the idea of the electoral college is flawed?
The second. I’ve been opposed to the EC for as long as I understood it.
Why do you think that was put in place to begin with?
I think it was done to provide equal representation.
I don’t think that was a bad thing. Why do you? (not meant as snarky as it sounds)
If I understand it correctly, it was done to placate the smaller states (and slave states) who were concerned that presidential candidates would focus on larger states and cities without the EC. But I think it’s gone ridiculously far in the other direction, such that presidential candidates in the general election never go to CA, NY, TX, or most of the largest cities in the country (NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, Houston, etc.), meaning that a NYC, Houston, or LA voter has much, much less influence than an IA, FL, or OH voter.
I don’t care about the motives – in practice, the EC means that only a few states are “battlegrounds” for each election. Without the EC, every vote, regardless of state, would count exactly the same. Candidates might spend most of their time in big cities to try and get as many votes as possible, but why is that worse than never going to big cities? Big cities have the most people in them… shouldn’t general election presidential candidates spend at least some of their time campaigning in the biggest population centers?
Perhaps a compromise might be to keep the EC, but get rid of “winner take all”, such that every state sets % parameters for breaking down their EV awards (i.e. 50-50 in PA means each candidate gets 10 EVs). That way, every state would be worth visiting, at least occasionally, to try and get over the % margin for an additional EV, even if you’re ahead or behind 70-30. But since every state handles it on their own, this would seem impossible to implement.
I thought the EC was silly when I first came across it in my 7th grade Govt class.
I figured, it had only made a difference once, quite a long time ago, and that if it ever came up again, it would be abolished, as being an antique from a different era that no longer represents us.
Then 2000 happened, and while there were some calls here and there to deal with the EC, nothing serious was ever considered.
Now 16 years later, and the will of the people is once again thwarted by archaic tradition, and it is time to fix that problem.
That is incorrect. The EC was not put in place to provided equal representation to the smaller states, what you are thinking of there is the senate, which was compromised upon to ensure that the small states would still have a voice in the govt. The executive branch was never intended to be beholden to the smaller states, nor for that matter, was the house of representatives.
For instance, a voter in Wyoming has 66 times the senatorial power as a voter in California. That was kind of the intention, even if they never imagined that there would be that large of a disparity between the large and small states (keep in mind, at this time, there were fewer than 4 million citizens in the entire country). The intention was not that they would also have nearly 4 times the power in the executive branch, nor more than twice the power in the HOR. If that was the intent, the founding fathers would have put that in. It wasn’t.
The EC was put in because the founding fathers didn’t really trust the masses to elect the president. For quite a number of years after the founding of the US, electors were appointed by the state govt, in whatever manner they chose. Very few were actually voted on by the actual voters. The EC was a final check, to ensure that someone completely unqualified and unfit for the job was not elected in some sort of populism uprising.
The problem with Electoral College reform is that when the system works, there’s no strong motivation to spend the effort needed to fix it (or abolish it). Every President only has so much political capital and he’s going to have other programs he’ll want to spend it on ahead of Electoral College reform.
The only time that motivation exists is in the aftermath of an election like 2000 or 2016 when one candidate wins the popular vote but lose the election. But in cases like that, the candidate that won owes his victory to the Electoral College. It’s unrealistic to expect that incoming President to turn around and try to change that system. You’re not only asking a new President to spend that political capital I referred to above on something outside of his agenda but you’re also asking him to undermine the legitimacy of his own Presidency by condemning the system that elected him. You’re essentially asking him to stand up and say “We need to change the system because obviously it’s wrong that I got elected instead of my opponent.”
What made her a horrible candidate was 30 years of right-wing smear manufacturing, lies, and conspiracy theories. What made her a horrible candidate was the right-wings complete lack of inhibition when lying about her. What made her a horrible candidate was the media narrative of her “lack of charisma” (which, as we saw during the debates, was also kind of a crock of shit). What made her a horrible candidate was the appearance of malfeasance, despite very little actually occurring.
I honestly don’t see how you could argue that Clinton would be a horrible president.
Well, barring a truly bizarre upset in December, this election would be special in that it fundamentally proved the electoral college incapable of achieving the one laudable goal it has - preventing an unqualified and dangerous demagogue running on unworkable populist ideas from achieving the highest office of the land. Right now, it’s being offered quite possibly the best opportunity to prove its worth: it could reject the unqualified and dangerous demagogue who lost the popular vote by around 1.5%. If it fails to do that, then there is simply no good reason for its existence.
But just in general, the idea that someone living in Wyoming has a vote worth almost four times that of a person living in California should be enough to raise a few hackles. And the idea that a person living in Florida essentially has a vote worth, at times, thousands of times as much as the vote of someone living in California (compare how much impact their vote had on the election, and how many more votes were needed to shift the result) should be outright disgusting to anyone who doesn’t live in one of the “swing states”. If I live in a solidly blue or red state, my voice basically doesn’t matter. If I live in Florida, my voice is incredibly important. That’s… kinda messed up, right? I mean, talk all you want about Clinton “running up the count in blue states”, but you’re telling millions of people, literally millions of people, that their vote doesn’t count because they live in California, or Texas, or Massachusetts, or Louisiana. That… can’t possibly be right.
“Nuanced positions” at this point are outright immoral. And it may well change minds; it might convince the people who stayed home because they thought the Democrats didn’t care about them. Because that’s the message that being “nuanced” sends; that if it’s a choice between seeing innocent people hurt and killed or submitting to the Right, they’ll choose submission every time.
Yes;* that’s what they voted for.* Whining “I didn’t mean it” won’t mean anything to the victims.
To the others that have responded, thanks. I’ll respond to each of you. I’m curious what elucidator thinks about the matter first, without relying on others to answer for him. Like he’s wont to do.
I’m a Dad, I am not goaded easily. The Dad abides.
Well that’s like, your opinion, man 
They were worried about the ignorant masses electing a demagogue.
So what has happened? Clinton won the popular vote by about 2.4 million (rough estimate) and Trump (the demagogue) won through the EC (while yammering all along that the system is rigged) - someone truly unfit and unqualified.
And there ARE questions about the voting… questions about gerrymandering, voter suppression, Russian hacks, security leaks, etcetera.
I only asked you to explain your thoughts. Didn’t know that was taboo or something you saw as a threat.
As has been pointed out on this board, several times that I recall, that no one is fit or qualified to be President until they actually are one.
This is the rhetoric why Hillary lost. Congratulations liberals. You got Trump elected. Now we’re in for World Civil War 3.
Nice try on the blame deflection, but nope. The people who voted for Trump got Trump elected. They bought it, they own it.
Adolf Hitler, there was a nice boy. Kind to small children and animals, polite to women, sober. Not like these tiny blue drunken gnomes we have today. Too bad the watercolor painting didn’t work out.
Wait, this is page four, and I’m posting a drily sardonic remark about a sarcastic remark on page one. I’ll go out and come in again.