Terrible idea. We need less democracy not more. Personally id like to see only net tax payers vote or have a required age of 30 to vote. This shit is getting ridiculous.
but that's not why we have an electoral college, the electoral college is designed to prevent war by keeping every region roughly equal. its not about counting votes (whoever told you this lied to you)
there are only 2 democracies that don't have an electoral college, mexico and ghana. they don't all cal it an electoral college, but it is
Like Florida did in 2000? At least Bush only lost the popular vote by half a million.
The 49-states argument is actually the best (not good, but the best) argument I ever saw for Trump's win in 2016, but he still lost the popular vote by millions, which seems unreasonable. Bush won nearly half the votes in California in 2004, shouldn't your president be trying to win everybody's vote?
How about replacing the electoral college with many candidates and instant runoff voting, so that every voter in every state gets an equal say in who their president is.
None of this would be such a problem if the Republican party were open to compromise in the Senate. What should happen is that 60 moderate senators should come to an agreement that maybe 20 senators on either extreme don't much like, but Republicans all vote with their extreme 20, and nothing serious gets done.
@goaded this is a discussion about the electoral college, which is the fair way to determine a president.
You placing blame on the republicans when democrats are doing the same shit is whats wrong with this country. I would say the democrats are worse, you dont see a republican ripping up their copy of the state of the union address like Pelosi did. Nothing but cry babies.
"this is a discussion about the electoral college, which is the fair way to determine a president." No, it's a way to repeatedly end up with a president who only represents a minority of the country's population.
Isn't the Senate enough of a drag on progress, with one "half" representing about 40,000,000 fewer Americans than the other "half"?
@007kingifrit: That colors mean political parties colors, not electoral college system where if you win one state or region you take all the available points designated to that area.
Its bad for a republic of states where you would want equal power in representing the vote. Larger population states would over power the smaller population states
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
47Opinion
No, we are a Federation. We should continue to be a Federation.
Terrible idea. We need less democracy not more. Personally id like to see only net tax payers vote or have a required age of 30 to vote. This shit is getting ridiculous.
Absolutely not.
The electoral college was instituted for reasons which are just as, or more valid today than when it was first conceived of.
Bad idea… you can’t run a whole country by just the population of cities… you can’t run urban areas by rural area laws…
Its a great idea! The electoral college isn't needed now when we can count every vote!
but that's not why we have an electoral college, the electoral college is designed to prevent war by keeping every region roughly equal. its not about counting votes (whoever told you this lied to you)
there are only 2 democracies that don't have an electoral college, mexico and ghana. they don't all cal it an electoral college, but it is
No, it is what prevents all of the major cities from having all of the voting power.
It's a bad idea. It would allow California and New York to pick the president every election year.
What was the difference in popular vote in 2016?
@goaded perfect example...
Hilary: 65,853,514
Trump: 62,501,018
If you take out California (8,753,788 for Hilary; 4,483,810 for Trump) the rest of the country's popular vote went to Trump.
Hilary: 57,099,726
Trump: 58,501,018
The electoral college weighs each state by their respective population which prevents one state from controlling who wins.
Like Florida did in 2000? At least Bush only lost the popular vote by half a million.
The 49-states argument is actually the best (not good, but the best) argument I ever saw for Trump's win in 2016, but he still lost the popular vote by millions, which seems unreasonable. Bush won nearly half the votes in California in 2004, shouldn't your president be trying to win everybody's vote?
How about replacing the electoral college with many candidates and instant runoff voting, so that every voter in every state gets an equal say in who their president is.
None of this would be such a problem if the Republican party were open to compromise in the Senate. What should happen is that 60 moderate senators should come to an agreement that maybe 20 senators on either extreme don't much like, but Republicans all vote with their extreme 20, and nothing serious gets done.
@goaded this is a discussion about the electoral college, which is the fair way to determine a president.
You placing blame on the republicans when democrats are doing the same shit is whats wrong with this country. I would say the democrats are worse, you dont see a republican ripping up their copy of the state of the union address like Pelosi did. Nothing but cry babies.
"this is a discussion about the electoral college, which is the fair way to determine a president."
No, it's a way to repeatedly end up with a president who only represents a minority of the country's population.
Isn't the Senate enough of a drag on progress, with one "half" representing about 40,000,000 fewer Americans than the other "half"?
Yes. Let the people of the nation by popular vote decide who they desire to be their leader.
Thanks for your opinion.
popular vote democracies don't survive. there are none of them in the world that function
the last 2 left are mexico (11 civil wars in 200 years) and ghana (constant civil war)
@007kingifrit: A lot of countries have elections by popular vote as it should be. The majority wins and rules.
no, very few countries have popular vote, and it doesn't work well
the people are too short sighted and dumb to directly take their will and make it action
without an electoral college the country will fall apart. as they always do
@007kingifrit: Lol.. what country has electoral collage except the U. S.
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_electoral_systems_by_country
now keep in mind not all of them are called electoral college but are essentially the same thing but even your own map shows like... almost all
only 2 or 3 countries have popular vote. ALL THE OTHER COLORS BESIDES BRIGHT RED ON YOUR MAP are some type of electoral college.
also don't get distracted by head of state map. almost every country on your map uses electoral college for 1/3 houses at minimum
@007kingifrit: You're in denial. Smh.
no im not. your own graph shows very few countries in bright red... all those other ones have somehting other than popular vote
@007kingifrit: That colors mean political parties colors, not electoral college system where if you win one state or region you take all the available points designated to that area.
that's another form of an electoral college, its NOT a popular vote
@007kingifrit: No its not. Click on their voting system and read it. It's not like the electoral college.
its very similar. and either way its not a popular vote
and those countries that do use one system still use an electoral college for a lower house
pure democracies NEVER survive
It could make America a real democracy eventually, yes.
No. Not that it matters when you have the election fixed, like last Nov..
Yes. One group shouldn't have to produce 10 million more votes every time to have a chance at winning
yes they should. in a democracy its not people that matter but regions. all regions must remain equal or they will rebel and destroy the union
mexico for example has no electoral college and uses a popular vote... mexico has had 11 civil wars in 200 years
Nope. In fact, I think voting should be one day and one day only. And you can never have too many rules to make sure you are who you say you are.
Its bad for a republic of states where you would want equal power in representing the vote. Larger population states would over power the smaller population states
No. But maybe it'll be replaced by left-wingers in a couple decades with another new system.
either way democrats will get china to print the ballots likey did in 2020 so what's the point.
Yes. Founders intentionally gave more power to rural communities without ever imagining the metropolises we have now.
Just get rid of voting entirely. It favors low IQ individuals.
at least restrict voting to taxpayers
Yeah. If I had to live in a democratic republic I would put quite a lot of restrictions in voting if I was designing it.
No. Simply stated, pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
No we need to keep that so Trump can be president in 2024
Direct Democracies are pure oppression and dysfunction. The U. S is not a damn democracy.