The Electoral College is Stupid But Not Because Clinton Lost

[ginny_weasley]

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.

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 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.

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.

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

[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?

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

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.

[ginny_weasley]

I agree but no system will be perfect. If we have four different political parties like the Green Party, democratic, republicans, and libertarians if we divide that four ways, we get 25. Worst case scenario the person who wins the presidency, only got about 25%. That's one in four people who wanted that person to be president.

[rjroy3]

I think it makes sense to still have a narrowing down process. But seperating parties into what they are now makes things difficult in many ways. Like it used to be both parties had both a conservative and a progressive wing. So there was a lot of similarities between Conservative Democrat and Progressive Republican. There was a lot more middle ground for people to resonate with. But both parties now are almost exclusively establishment. Clinton, Bush and Obama were all pro establishment. Trump is the first anti establishment guy in a very long time. Bernie was anti establishment in a lot of ways as well.

There's no perfect system. But having such wild extremes isn't in the best interest of our country. It shouldn't have to be Super Conservative Republican or Super Progressive Democrat. Then no one really wins.

[rjroy3]

If nothing else good comes from this election. Hopefully we get a much larger line up of anti establishment candidates in future elections, to stop abuse of power.

[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.

[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

[ginny_weasley]

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.

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

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.

[Idonotgivearatsass]

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).

[gotc147]

@Idonotgivearatsass Each state has a set number of electoral votes to reflect it's population, hence why California has 55 electoral votes. Those high population areas DO have more influence, just not so much more that they negate the rest of the country, as a popular vote would.

[Idonotgivearatsass]

@gotc147 You have a problem with majority rules then, I take it?

[gotc147]

@Idonotgivearatsass Yes, I most assuredly do.

Two wolves and a goat cast a vote on what's for dinner, guess what's for dinner.

The men who came up with the Electoral College were ten times smarter than you could ever dream of becoming in 100 lifetimes. You're just pissy because you didn't get your way even though you agreed to the rules long in advance knowing full well that this could happen, no liberals had any issues with the Electoral College when they thought they had it nearly locked down so shut it.

[Idonotgivearatsass]

@gotc147
Yes, you're so right, I didn't get my... I wasn't voted to become our 45th President. I did not vote for either of them, I voted for myself... so the argument that I didn't get my is falling on deaf ears. If you don't believe me that the Electoral College needs to go, then go read the actual charter/rules that created it, then come back to me (by the way, the Founding Fathers created because they thought the average citizen was to stupid to pick the right person, which is why it's set up that the members of the EC don't have to pick who the voters picked, and that is in black and white writing)..

[gotc147]

@Idonotgivearatsass They were exactly right, most Americans are WAY too stupid to elect good leaders, this election is a perfect example.

So once again, shut 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.

[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.

[conkrete721]

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.

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

Exactly. And candidates always focus on the battleground states rather than the people.

[smahala1991]

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,

[smahala1991]

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.

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

That's my biggest problem with it. It should be modified at the very least.

[Theodorable]

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.

[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

[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

[castratedwhiteguy]

@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...

[Glue-Sniffer]

@castratedwhiteguy she is talking about germany. The EU is not a country. What are you talking about?

[castratedwhiteguy]

@Glue-Sniffer I don't think you read my last comment properly! Read it again! FYI, Germany is a puppet state of the European Union. German tax revenue is being used to bail out basket case countries like Greece and Portugal. That's one reason why the German people seem to be so pissed off right now. Obviously, you don't even know what's going on in your own country.

[Glue-Sniffer]

@castratedwhiteguy german people are pissed off because they think they have taken a backseat to the refugees. I don't blame them. At times it's overwhelming when all people see is someone from a low income family in need is denied to rent an apartment for 20-30€ but then they see thousands of refugees being supported for free. Such things don't help the image of merkel's plan but trying to eliminate all non german people is too much and clearly crazy! These people are scared because of what they think is an unkown future. So many people here are suffering from "Altersarmut" which basically means their retirement doesn't even cover their basic needs and they are below the povery line.
The EU and its plans are no top priority concern to the people here right now.

[castratedwhiteguy]

@Glue-Sniffer The EU is setting these migration policies, not Angela Mercel. She's a globalist stooge. That's why Germany needs a UK style Brexit. If that happens than the tyranny that is the European Union would implode, and it must implode. by the way, I'm of German decent so I wish you well. I hope the German people take their country back just like we're beginning to do by electing Trump. Up with national sovereignty and death to the New World Order!!!

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

We're really more of an oligarchy at this point. Our government is too corrupt.

[PT1911]

Only because of the clintons.

[conkrete721]

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.

[PT1911]

@conkrete721

That's what The Donald will try to push for as well.

[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

[ginny_weasley]

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.

[conkrete721]

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.

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

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

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

No as for our congress, we should have term limits. Which trump said he will make effective.

[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.

[ginny_weasley]

Once again, not what he tweeted three years ago. People have hated it for quite some time

[Righttobeararms83]

And yet done nothing.

[ginny_weasley]

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

[Righttobeararms83]

All that needs happen is for people to vote. There are other less established parties, again if 50% won't vote what can be done. Its in voters hands, voting is a citizen's civic duty all conservatives believe this not so much liberals. Britain was a two party staye for a long time until the Labour part was first elected.

[ginny_weasley]

True. 46% of people didn't vote. And as my dad always said, people who don't vote, have no right to complain about the government.

[Righttobeararms83]

Your father is a wise man

[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.

[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

[LuisPenaNunez]

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."

[Rissyanne]

If people dont like it... go talk to your congressman about changing it.