The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost

ginny_weasley

The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost

It's not one man, one vote.

It's really more about winning the states vote, rather than the people's vote. I don't know why it matters where you live. Either way, having a popular vote system would be truly democratic.

There is a possibility of 269-269 tie.

When this happens, the election is then decided by Congress. I don't know about you guys, but I don't like my congressmen. Or rather my previous congressman. His name is Harry Reid and he's corrupt as hell. I've never met a single person who likes him. The only reason he kept getting elected over and over is because he has NV Energy on his side.

The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost
It is possible to win the election by just winning 11 states and disregarding the rest of the country.

If one candidate were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that candidate would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win.

I don't know in what world would California and Texas vote for the same candidate, but I hope you get the point.

The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost

The election could produce a very weird President and Vice-President

If no candidate gets the magic 270 votes, then Congress steps in. The House of Representatives decides on who wins as president while the Senate decides on the vice-president. This could produce a very odd president and Vice President. Like Mitt Romney as president and Joe Biden as vice-president.

All votes aren't equal.

If you live in California, your vote counts for less than a third of what a vote costs in Wyoming. Also, it means that Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada (The southwest excuding California) have to be won to equal the effects of winning JUST Texas.

The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost

Rogue electors

We elect electors and they elect the president. Technically, they don't even have to vote. They won't even face repercussions either.

If you live in a state that is very conservative or very liberal, and you belong to the opposite party, you may throw your vote away.

The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost

If you've been following any of my questions, I asked about question one in Nevada to gain insight and opposing views to consider. This law passed because one county that is very liberal and has a high population voted in favor. Now conservatives in my state are pissed. It's the same thing that if you live in a liberal state like Oregon or Washington and you voted for Trump, you basically threw your vote away.

Donald Trump is the president. What's done is done. He should fix the system that he called a disaster for democracy. #theelectoralcollegeisstupid

The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost
24
7
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • rjroy3
    If we want to change the system we have to do away with the two party system. George Washington got it right waaaaay back in the day. He warned us about them.

    " George Washington lamented that political party wrangling "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."

    Sound familiar?
    Is this still revelant?
    • rjroy3

      We do need changes. But without making deeper core changes, just a new voting system won't solve anything. What we have now is simply a complicated protection system to keep a balance of powers.

    • I agree let's start with the two party system. George Washington warned us about them. And we do the exact opposite of what he said.

    • rjroy3

      Exactly. We're so limited because of the labels we currently have. If you take on the title you pretty much embody a stereotype in the eyes of so many.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • TuMeManques
    Actually if it were simply left to the popular vote the candidates would only care about 3 or 4 of the largest cities and the rest of us would be entirely irrelevant. The electoral college is actually the best way to represent a majority of the people.
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

623
  • gotc147
    Your Nevada example is the exact reason the electoral college needs to be kept as it is.

    If we went by a strict popular vote, southern California and New York would decide who is President every time. Candidates would only have to focus on high-population areas, promising the people there anything they want at the expense of everywhere else.

    No, the electoral college system requires candidates for President to have a broad range of support all across the country.
    • My Nevada reason was the exact reason we don't need it. It needs to be amended at the very least. The entire law passed because of one very liberal county.

    • gotc147

      And if we didn't have the electoral college, a very small percentage of the country would elect a President while ignoring the rest.

      Look at the nationwide election results, look at how much red there is and how little blue there is, that small amount of blue would dictate the President for the rest.

    • That's not a small percentage of the country if you're looking at population, if you're looking at real estate, yes, it is a smaller percent of the country. Why wouldn't majority rule work (that's what the popular vote is essentially, majority rule).

    • Show All
  • Theodorable
    I like the Electoral College because I do not think the large cities should be able to decide an election for the other 9/10th of the country. A country ruled by the cities, stiffing everyone on the outside.
    • That's my biggest problem with it. It should be modified at the very least.

    • You think it should be modified to be more inclusive for the smaller states? I do agree with that. California has 55 electoral votes, while Montana has three, I believe.

  • SarahsSummer
    So you want a popular vote system for president even though you don't like that system for voting in your senators. Trump's only president because of electoral college and Harry Ried is only senator because of Energy lobbyists. I sense a trend here.
    • No as for our congress, we should have term limits. Which trump said he will make effective.

  • smahala1991
    I agree the Electoral College is a bad idea. You are always going to have your Liberal Stronghold states like Oregon, Washington, Minnesota etc... Then your Red states tha are always red like Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina etc.. But there are enough battleground/swing states to where the election can really go either way even without the Electoral College.
    • Exactly. And candidates always focus on the battleground states rather than the people.

    • Exactly, the candidates his last time around were more focused on visiting North Carolina and Florida more than anything. I was at the point at saying Damn can't y'all leave already or at least move here if you are going to be here so much. North Carolina was already looking bad in the media anyways,

    • I can actually only think of 3 Bible belt States tha have ever went blue. Tennessee during Clinton's 96 campagin, NC and VA during Obamas first term, and VA Again n Obamas second term and for Hillary.

  • PT1911
    A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

    The electoral college gets over this.

    Pure femoral caused the fall of many great empires, the founding fathers were wise to put in the electoral college.

    We are not a demoracy, we are a constutonal republic.

    The electoral. college prevents mobs rule.
    • We're really more of an oligarchy at this point. Our government is too corrupt.

    • PT1911

      Only because of the clintons.

    • Term limits would prevent this. It would be nice to see new people who want to do something rather than someone who's been in a seat for 20+ years.

    • Show All
  • Thisperson98
    We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. Also the electoral college makes sure a candidate apeals to many different areas of the country.
    • I would call us more of an oligarchy to be honest.

  • Iron_Man
    No it's good because California is a huge State and it's all Democrat and no Republican would ever win the popular vote because of California except for Ronald Reagan because he is mr California
    • And no democrat will ever win the Bible Belt states. At the time it was made, the electoral college was of use. Today with our population and our infrastructure, it's irrelevant. You have your States that will always be red like the Bible Belt States. You have your States that will always be blue like Oregon, Washington, and California. Today, all the candidates focus on is the battleground states because those states can make them win the election. So basically the election will come down to those battleground states. Also we have abused everything the founding fathers made and did the exact opposite of what they advised.

    • Consider this, yes there are some states that always go red and some that always go blue. When you compare these states, what is the population density? California and New York pretty much eclipse every other state. While it has it's flaws, this is a big reason why the electoral college exists.

  • Righttobeararms83
    Perhaps the liberals and democrats should have thought of that before the election. Trump knew ot was stupid and was smart enough to base his campaign on it.
    • Once again, not what he tweeted three years ago. People have hated it for quite some time

    • And yet done nothing.

    • We really can't do anything because of a corrupt government. We have a lot that needs change. Like the two party system.

    • Show All
  • Fathoms77
    The Electoral College is in place to stop us from having like thirty political parties. It's not perfect but it has worked, and continues to work relatively well, despite its flaws.
    • nalaa

      Well in Germany we have something we call the "5% Hurdle". You need to get 5% of all votes to get any seats. And it works pretty well at preventing us from having 30 parties also. I think there are normally 5 -6 different parties to get seats in government. And most governments in my lifetime anyway were coalition governments, which I think is great because it smaller parties a chance to be heard

    • Fathoms77

      @nalaa Yeah, I know, but even 5 or 6 parties in the U. S. would be just chaos. :P

    • @nalaa If your political process works so well then why the hell are you people still surrendering your tax dollars and your sovereignty to Brussels? The last time I checked the whole EU was on the brink of economic collapse? Great system you have over there...

    • Show All
  • Splintercell
    There is a reason the founders established a electoral college, so that the more populated states don't discard the smaller states with less people in them. By the way we aren't a democracy, we are a republic (constitution article 4, section 4).
    This is what the founders understood a democracy to be.
    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon waste, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -John Adams

    "A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils. A democracy is a mobocracy." -Benjamin Rush
    • At this point, we're an oligarchy. At the time, the electoral college was of use. Today with our population and our infrastructure, it's irrelevant. You have your States that will always be red like the Bible Belt States. You have your States that will always be blue like Oregon, Washington, and California. Today, all the candidates focus on is the battleground states because those states can make them win the election. So basically the election will come down to those battleground states. Also we have abused everything the founding fathers made and did the exact opposite of what they advised.

  • Kuraj
    "It is possible to win the election by just winning 11 states and disregarding the rest of the country."

    Are you kind of, particularly dense?
    Removal of the electoral college system would make it EVEN WORSE.
    With votes having the same weight, you wouldn't even need those 11 states but only like 5, with the rest being completely disregarded.
    The CURRENT system makes it so the smaller states have a voting chance.
    You seem to be completely oblivious about this fact.
  • Roll_Tide_Roll
    Clinton's less then 1% lead in the PV were all votes by illegals in California, So they don't count.
    And the electoral college is perfect for a constitutional republic, This is not Greece.
    • Rissyanne

      Not to mention all the dead people the democrats voted for

    • I would call us more of an oligarchy to be honest.

  • VirginiaBeachBum
    Wow, someone paid attention in civics class. :-) Good job!

    But there is this line:

    "They won't even face repercussions either."

    In a handful of states an elector can face penalties (in Washington State, I believe it is a $1,000 fine) for not voting for the winner of their state. But I agree, the Electoral College is an antiquated system which needs to be abolished.
  • Kiran04
    But without the electoral college, candidates would only ever campaign to the coastal states where the population densities are monumental and disregard the land locked states completely. The problems you speak of would only be exacerbated by the popular vote, not solved by it. Now no one cares about any states other than California, New York, and Florida. You could win a popular vote with just those 3 states alone if you had enough presence there. That's ludicrous.
  • Yumix
    I never understood the US election system. Maybe it was good 200 years ago, but nowadays it seems unnecessarily complicated and unfair
    • Yeah

    • jacquesvol

      @Yumix This article explains why it exists: "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists" : time.com/.../

      It doesn't explain why it still exists.
      "Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states.
      But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior."

  • Jayded1
    There is a terrible irony that people are screaming about their constitutional right to protest when they are protesting about getting rid of the electoral college which is a part of the constitution. lol
  • castratedwhiteguy
    The electoral college prevents the majority liberal assholes from New York (east) and California (west) from turning all of America into bankrupt socialist basket case. Texas is doing just fine thanks to the electoral college...
  • Rissyanne
    If people dont like it... go talk to your congressman about changing it.
  • CyberToothTiger
    I think they need another way to vote a person in office for US President.
    I agree that the electoral college should be eliminated and replaced with
    who wins the most popular vote in each state. They could just use the
    states that give 270 and call it " The 270 College Vote" I really do also
    believe that a person who gets 50 % of the vote should win that state
    that could be something used instead of someone winning 47.9 % and
    win the state just makes no sense. I do believe all votes should matter.
    I believe the US wastes too much money on Presidential elections and
    i believe people who are under investigation by the FBI or makes threats
    to ban certain religions and makes fun of disabled people should
    automatic be disqualified to run for any office including President.
  • SlightlyCrazy
    It truly amazes me it's taken someone this long to say to say this! Thank you !
  • Saoirse_Nua
    I can see the benefits of both systems but I was watching a news programme and earlier with a professor who had a good point. Under the electoral college only the battleground matters, a presidential candidate will never go how do I appeal to a voter in Texas or California but will wet themselves with prospect of appealing to a voter in Florida and North Carolina. On the flip side the popular vote favours the urban centres so I think we will always be in a situations where Democrats want popular vote and Republicans will want electoral college. Lets get down to it, the high and lofty arguments about offering illegal immigrants path to citizenship or not (BS - Real reason 11 million predominately democratic voters extra in the electorate)
  • QuestionMan
    After some consideration I've realized that a first past the post system might not work in the US, I was wrong.
    Consider Brexit where Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted to stay but England wanted to leave.
    cf.girlsaskguys.com/.../...a-a1de-e756c5973112.jpg
    You are effectively calling for tyranny of the majority.
    There definitely needs to be talk of electoral reform, at the very least making all electors accountable for the people's votes.
    I think the US needs to have an honest debate with many different proposals put forward and having it decided in a referendum.

    In Canada we are hoping to reform our system. I want to see MMP here it's the best choice imho. In the US it is a lot more complicated.
  • JRICHARDS1996
    I agree that the electoral college system has its flaws but I disagree with the notion of determining elections via the popular vote. Like it or not, individual states matter. Not everyone is as individualistic and unique as you would think, rather, they can be generalized based upon their state. A Californian and a Texan have very little in common, for example. Thus, a popular vote election would give an unfair amount of power to states with the largest population at the expense of rural states with fewer people like farmers and the countryside. This is not fair at all. If anything, the electoral college gives everyone a more equal vote. Granted, it has its problems which merit consideration, but resorting merely to the popular vote would be disastrous. We would need to find a way to maintain the principle of the electoral vote so that states with a large population do not possess an unfair amount of influence over elections.
    • This guy knows what he's talking about. If everything was decided on the popular vote, highly populated states would decide every election. i. e. - New York and California. Here's a good example of this election. Hillary won the popular vote by less than 1 percent. If you were to remove New York state from the equation, Trump has nearly 2 million more votes than Hillary in the popular vote.

      All states matter and no state should trump another's importance.

  • Reach500
    Why not just give each state one vote based on the choice of it's majority? Why complicate things with electoral and popular votes?
  • RationalMale
    All votes aren't equal. Consider--it's estimated that 2.5 million illegal immigrants live in California. That gives them a boost in both Congress and the Electoral College, despite a large chunk of their population not even legally residing in this country! California alone should have about 6 less seats in Congress!

    www.fairus.org/.../illegal-immigrants-distort-congressional-representation-and-federal-programs
  • helloitsmethere
    This election is the same as the one in 2000...
    • VomitV

      No, it isn't.

    • @VomitV yes it is. Al Gore won the popular vote and he didn't win the presidential election. It's the same thing that happened during this election. This has happened TWICE during modern history already.

    • VomitV

      There's a lot of other shit that wasn't similar. I. E., Trump decisively won Florida, among other things.

    • Show All
  • Adigelunar
    well done
  • McCurious
    AMEN!!
Loading...