The electoral college should be eliminated?

[Anonymous]

Every vote does NOT in fact count.

they count up the votes and whoever got most in that state, the electoral college selects as winner for that state etc

that’s not counting every vote.

Instead we should eliminate electoral college and it say this state win this and that state won’t that, NO.

I stead get all the total votes for this person from this state and from that state etc etc

then add them all up for eve RT person that voted from every state.

whoever has the most votes wins and that’s truly what the majority of the people selected.

Making delegates and electoral college is a scam to democracy.

even if you say that “explained it wrong”

it still comes down to what state had these many votes and yadda yadda, instead of just count ALL the votes not by state saying this state isnksotkynthis and that state mostly that no. Not by states, just ALL as a country how many votes did this person get and how many the other and the other.

it is also a scam that they choose for only republicans and democrats to always have the power and the others are just for deceitful purposes to make the people thing this is a “democracy”

along with abolishing the electoral college we also need to eliminate all the Israelis that have infiltrated and infested our government.

Yes we do need to eliminate electoral college and count every single vote to its true democracy

No because I don’t want democracy

Updates

1 y

Also do not post a video explaining what it does. Posting a video means you to it self do not understand it. If you disagree with me then explain it to YOuR understanding. It because some video said etc

[NaultD]

It's the definition of DEI. the electoral college is the number of population with senate and one house seat so lowest is three.

First and foremost I don't think we should have it. If we choose to have it the lowest vote count should be one. The senate is DEI enough representing the minimum amount of people already.

[pacificopete]

I agree with you 100% I live on the red half of a state. The blue half always wins. It's meaningless for anybody on the red side to vote. 48 states use this winner-take-all method.

[pacificopete]

Thanks

[Asker]

😎 you’re welcome

[MrOracle]

Simple democracies quickly implode or become dictatorships. One of the greatest things about the United States of America is that we are a REPUBLIC, with three different branches of government that each play an integral part, with checks and balances. The Electoral College was specifically designed to ensure that states with small populations don't simply get steamrolled by the few that have large populations.

You're advocating for two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's because you believe you'll always be the wolf - but what happens when you wake up and today you're the sheep?

In this last election, Democrats spent two years prior complaining on a daily basis that if Trump won, it wouldn't be legitimate and would "destroy our democracy" because he'd never win the popular vote. And then he did. So now we're back to "let's abolish the Electoral College."

Here's an idea: how about you run a candidate who can win enough votes to win the election? I know, that's HARD, because that means they have to have enough good ideas, and not so many bad ones, that they can get a majority of the people to vote for them. When you run someone like Kamala Harris, you literally lose the entire government - but you didn't care about whether she had what it took to win, just that she was the one with the D next to their name.

Going forward, it's going to be MUCH harder to cheat. There have been several landmark court cases establishing case law, and many more are on the way. Voter roles are being cleaned up. Voter ID laws are being enforced. We may well be going back to paper ballets. Deadlines for voting will be enforced. I'm not saying that it won't be possible to cheat, because people always try, but it's going to be MUCH harder.

So, the only way to win is to appeal to the moderates as well as your base - but Democrats can't do that because their base is so far to the left that they consider moderates to be "far-right ultra-MAGA." And until you can appeal to the middle, you won't win elections. It's really that simple. No one is going to support changing election rules to favor you. You can whine about it all you like, but if you couldn't do it under Biden (and you couldn't), then it's never going to happen, because Biden's admin (let's not pretend that Biden himself was ever in charge) was willing to do anything they could get away with to stack the deck in their favor.

No, you're going to have to actually run good candidates who can appeal to the center if you want to win. And we know you won't do that.

[Asker]

Nope. It’s always the same sermon that to be “fair” nonsense. Every vote would count individually, not by how many votes in this state and this state had majority of red so red wins for this state. Simply no.

To make every vote count it’s counting all who voted individually not by states just all and get what person received the most votes. Individually.

That’s the REAL fair way to go about it not the big woke little wold where the ones with the least votes get thrown in the trash.

Stop trying to continue to gaslight the people with that nonsense. The only way to have every single vote count even in places with less population, IS to get rid of electoral college and to make propaganda illegal so as to avoid brainwashing the masses to vote for one side based on lies and such etc etc.

[WindAtMyBack]

Another poll that's not really a poll. Both answers support your view.

No I do NOT support the elimination of the electoral college. I'm a strong supporter of it.

"they count up the votes and whoever got most in that state, the electoral college selects as winner for that state etc "

It appears that you don't even know what the electoral college is. So you are against something you don't even understand what it is.

[Asker]

It is basically that. Explain it to me anyway you want and it WILL come down to that because they say it’s not fair for example that this state has this many people and that state has that many people and therefore to make it “fair” we create “electoral college” nonsense to gaslight the naive people.

If we count EVERY single vote, not saying this state wins this and that state wins that, NO.

Just a grand total of people who voted who voted for who, and whoever gets the majority votes wins. THaT is democracy.

Explain your case. I bet you won’t because you haven’t yet. You just say you support something and that I don’t understand and blah blah but risky to explain anything.

So go on.

Shine your light. 💡
Waiting.

[David318578]

This country is not a democracy, never has been. Going to a popular vote means that just a few cities control the voting and ignores the rest of rural America.

That makes it so they only have to campaign in those cities, and makes it easier to cheat.

[Asker]

No. It would mean the country as a whole had majority votes for so and so. Not by state. As a whole.

[David318578]

I understand what you want, your saying mob rules. But this country is not, a democracy, it has never been a democracy, and it will never be a democracy. It's a representative constitutional Republic.

If you want a mob rule democracy, you would have to win a civil war.

[Syntosi]

@David318578
This is a stupid argument. Yes, USA is a democracy. It is also a republic. They are not contradictory terms. Republic is about things like the structure of the government. Democracy is about how elections are held.

Also, if your argument is that if you count every vote then its easier to cheat since you only need to campaign in major cities, how is that any different from only campaigning in "swing states"? Objectively speaking you have to convince fewer people in the current system than you would have to do in a true democracy.

Your argument fails on every level and dont make any lick of sense.

[David318578]

@Syntosi no it is not a democracy, a democracy is mob rule. That is not the US. Never had been. Swing states change all the time, but the major cities do not. Campaigning in city's would be the only thing that matters in a democracy. Rural America would be ignored.

Our system of government and voting was specifically set up so that doesn't happen.

[Syntosi]

Claiming that democracy is "mob rule" is ridiculous. Also, do you think it is more fair to only campaign in swing states and ignore the rest of the country including both rural and cities? Because that is how the current system works. Also you can rig elections using gerrymandering which is not possible with a true democracy.

[Asker]

It’s not a democracy. They should stop saying it is then or get rid of electoral college. Simple. Stop lying to the people.

[David318578]

@Syntosi mob rule is majority rule. That's what democracy is. And they don't just campaign in swing states, well at least Trump didn't, he campaigned everywhere, so not sure what your referring to.

[David318578]

@asker nobody other then the left wing media refers to it as a democracy, but the media is kind of a joke so best to ignore whatever they say anyway

[Syntosi]

As opposed to the electoral collage which is minority rule? And yes, they only campaign in swing states.

[David318578]

@Syntosi it's the United STATES of America not the United PEOPLE of America. Each state handles it's votes how they want, some are winner take all electorals (popular vote at the state level) some states break it up slightly.
Now if you want to make an argument that all states should break it up then I would agree with you.

For instance Texas has 38 and is winner take all, so Trump won the state and all electorals went to Trump. What I think would be better is that it is broken down into the districts, whoever wins that district wins that electoral. So maybe 30 would of went to Trump, and 8 went to Harris, or whatever.

This makes it so every county matters rather then just the large cities.

[Syntosi]

@David318578
Now you are just arguing pointless semantics. And once again, none of this changes the fact that the political fighting during election times is only over swing states.

Also the existence of swing states demonstrates why breaking up the votes would never make every country matter, not just the large cities. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works on a basic level my dude.

[David318578]

@Syntosi lol no I actually do understand how this works, Harris got over 4 million votes in Texas, how many electoral votes did that get her? 0
Breaking it up by county means all those votes would of netted her some of the electoral votes.

Your angry about swing states, but swing states are only a thing because it's winner take all in the state.

Breaking it up by county means it's now longer a swing state.

[Syntosi]

*Facepalm*
Okey. So lets try understand your positions here. First you are against "majority rule" through the argument of "mob rule". By extension you think the minority should rule the majority.

Then we have the whole electoral collage system. You think this is a great idea, because it empowers small unpopulated farmlands to overpower the big mean cities by collecting people into groups of people and having all of them collectively cast their vote for only one candidate. However, you dont like "winner takes all" states that collects all the electoral votes and casts them to only 1 candidate.

And you think by breaking up the "winner takes all" states so that it goes back to the electoral collage is a better system because it more fairly represents the peoples votes and you believe that this would eliminate "swing states"...

Talk about being internally inconsistent and try to solve a problem by putting it back into the exact same position that caused the problem in the first place. And then you come to me and claims that you understand how all of this works perfectly. I am quite frankly flabbergasted.

[David318578]

@Syntosi nope you have missed my point.

Going to a popular vote is mob rule, that doesn't work because the major cities control the whole of the US.

The US is filled with people from all kinds of backgrounds and lifestyles all living together. Just making it so the major cities control everything ignores most of the US population. That's a bad system. We are a representative Republic, representative is the key point here. Removing the electoral college means only the big cities are represented..

So making it so the stats are broken up by county for the electoral votes means that all people in this country have to be considered when making your policies. That's the point of NOT having a popular vote.

There is nothing inconsistent about what I have said. I said before swing states are constantly changing so I don't care about swing states, you seem upset by them, which going to counties taking the electoral vote means there is no swing states anymore, something that you seem to care about.

What I want is the politicians to take everyone into consideration as best as they can, the electoral college was set up for that reason, could it be improved? Sure, like I said by breaking up the winner take all states into county wins each electoral vote does that

[Syntosi]

@David318578
That is not what "Representative" means. A representative republic means that you vote for a representative AKA Politician to make decisions in your interest rather than something like Switzerland where the people sometimes vote directly on if they should pass certain legislation in their own elections.

Actually, aside from Switzerland I dont actually know of another country that employs a direct democracy. Which means every other country that is not a dictatorship, practice a form of representative form of government. AKA, representative is not the key point there.

And no, if "winner takes all" states means that not everyone is considered when making your policy then the electoral collage is the same since they are functionally identical at different levels of scale. One being a representation of 700,000-200,000 people and the other being a representation of a state.

As for why I am "obsessed" with swing states? Its because they are the ones who decides elections in USA. The candidate who wins the swing states, wins the election. Nothing else really matters.

[David318578]

@Syntosi if that was the case with your beliefs of swing states then you would be on board with my idea of removing winner takes all from the states.

Look at Pennsylvania, 19 electoral votes and almost a 50/50 voting split. So you don't like that they campaign so much in Pennsylvania. And I understand that and don't really disagree with it.

But removing winner takes all means they are not going to just focus on Pennsylvania, because moving that voting number slightly so you have 51% no longer means you get 19 electoral votes, it now means you get 10, and your opponent got 9, so that's a lot of effort to pick up 1 vote.

[Syntosi]

@David318578
Sure, remove the winner takes all. However its not going to solve the fundamental issue. Its like re-arranging the deckchairs on a sinking titanic really, sort of pointless when everything is considered.

You are also correct, if you change the formula by removing winner takes all then the current swing states will change.. to just another set of swing districts.

Politicians will identify every electoral vote. Then they will categorize them by how "safe" they are. Rural goes to the Republicans, cities goes to Democrats. Neither side is going to invest anything into either of those. Instead, they are going to identify the smallest number of electoral votes they need to add to their cities or rural areas for them to win with 51% and then they will look at the closest electoral votes they are to win and select that number of them. Those are the new "swing states". Both sides are going to invest only in flipping those. They are the people who will gain representation and "bribes" in the forms of investments and promises from politicians while the rest of the country goes ignored.

[David318578]

@Syntosi as opposed to your idea of a popular vote and just cater to the cities means NOBODY is representing the rural America.

Besides your worry with it just turning into swing "districts" is unfounded because districts are how we vote for the house of representatives.

[Syntosi]

My worry is confirmed with how USA votes for the house of representatives. Not every seat is given the same priority because not every seat is needed for a majority in the house. Again, the focus is on the minimum number they need to flip for a majority. That is where the money is spent, that is where the attention is given and that is where the best candidates go.

If that was the only thing that happened by adoption a better democratic system then yes, that would not really change much either. However while I do want to remove the electoral system because its stupid and also its easy to manipulate to change election results such as through gerrymandering, my true goal with this change is to destroy the 2 party system.

There are obviously other things you can also do to promote new parties to form such as ranked voting but the first thing is to destroy the current election system that basically forces this two party system into being.

[DrPepper12]

Don't even need to look at answers. Some MAGA has already bellowed "Were a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" not a democracy!" You can set your watch to it!

[Dargil]

You know why it exists and your mind is already locked against it, so discussion is worthless.

[CaptainSmartass]

We should just abolish politics full stop. Throw the lot of them in jail.

Simples...

[BarryLiverstone]

The USA has never been a democracy

[Asker]

Exactly so, we should eliminate electoral college to make it truly a democracy otherwise it’s not. They just lie to us. Saying we “need” elect college to be “fair” brainwashing and gaslighting the naive people.

[BarryLiverstone]

Nope. Keep the EC. It’s working

[Asker]

That’s throwing the people vote in the trash.

[BarryLiverstone]

People vote for many things , not just the potus.

[Asker]

I’m specifically referring to the leader of the country vote. Our votes are merely a suggestion not every vote counts. If state 1 has more blue votes then it doesn’t matter who voted red they’re tossed.

What I’m saying is every vote should count. Gathered up all in one bunch and check who got the most votes, not by state but every single individual who voted counted.

[BarryLiverstone]

I know what you are saying. You said this the last 10 times you asked this question and will say it the next 10 times

[Stevepro68]

Well if you read all the way through iit reveals a lot about you. Good luck I hope anger doesn't dominate your life peace ✌️

[Asker]

It reveals not every single vote counts which is what should matter not about anger just maybe you feel good being lied to, I don’t.

[seeyounexttuesday]

No it should not. You whiners can get fucked.

[Asker]

So you don’t want your vote to actually count. You are good with it being just a “suggestion”. You’re not for democracy then you want others to select who rules our country.

And it’s not “whining”, it’s stating if they say it’s a democracy to actually make it a democracy. They lie to us, that’s what we are addressing not whining. If you’re okay with being lied to then your opinion doesn’t really matter.

[seeyounexttuesday]

the united states is not a democracy. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. hope this helps.

[Asker]

No it’s not which is what they repeat it to us daily that we are (they lie) then we should make it so and eliminate electoral college.

Democracy is governed by the people not tyranny.

[seeyounexttuesday]

really? So if I can get another guy on this site to vote with you on whether we get to rape you, do we get to do it?

[Asker]

That is immoral. You clearly have a mental problem coming up with such a preposterous analogy. Seek mental help.

[Asker]

Having said that propaganda should be illegal so as to now sway the masses into believing nonsense the way democrats and the left tactics work. Not saying the right doesn’t do it either but the left takes a giant piece of cake when it comes to propaganda.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Now you got it! Morality doesn't come into account when you're advocating democracy. There's no end to what the majority can do to you.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Asker]

No you’re talking propaganda which is why I say it would be illegal. The money laundering war criminal of Obama set for propaganda to be used again when it should be more and more restricted as we go.

And the people with mental problems like yourself need to be helped or eliminated. Pedophiles for example, there is no need to have that type of mental problem around. It should eliminated period. There’s no fixing that. People like you comparing voting for who rules a nation to voting for who gets to rape someone also should be addressed, if you can’t be fixed, then you too should be eliminated, We don’t need that illness to spread.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Well you can keep crying but the EC is here to stay.