Another racist moron toasts any career prospects they might have had (Asa Blanton)

[fskimospy]

And for all of that, it still works well. The states can distribute their votes as they see fit, either split or winner take all. This gives smaller states a voice they otherwise wouldn't have. That said, we've only elected five presidents that didn't win the popular vote.

I guess it depends on how you define 'works well'. It basically silences the voices of 90% of the states, both large and small, in exchange for supremely emphasizing the voice of about 5-6 states. It's hard to see why a system that promotes the views of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona over the views of the other 45 states is good.

I think it would be better to have a system where candidates had an incentive to visit all states, large and small, which is what a national popular vote would do.

 

[Greenman]

Looking like one of those pasty white guys who screw minorities like me out of political power with racist gerrymandering(courts said not me), I understand your happiness.

Not really pasty, more of a farmers tan.

 

[JD50]

And for all of that, it still works well. The states can distribute their votes as they see fit, either split or winner take all. This gives smaller states a voice they otherwise wouldn't have. That said, we've only elected five presidents that didn't win the popular vote.

Why should a person in a small state have a louder voice than a person in a large state? Shouldn't everyone have an equal voice, like literally every other election in our country?

 

[Greenman]

I guess it depends on how you define 'works well'. It basically silences the voices of 90% of the states, both large and small, in exchange for supremely emphasizing the voice of about 5-6 states. It's hard to see why a system that promotes the views of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona over the views of the other 45 states is good.

I think it would be better to have a system where candidates had an incentive to visit all states, large and small, which is what a national popular vote would do.

Doesn't that indicate how close the political split is overall? If it was a popular vote the results would most often be the same, 53 out of 58 times so far.
The states could also choose to distribute their votes based on percentages, the result would be the same.

 

[JD50]

It is a great system, and I consider myself lucky to have been born in this time and this place.

Of course you feel this way, you're not the one getting your rights taken away. Try having some empathy.

 

[Greenman]

Why should a person in a small state have a louder voice than a person in a large state? Shouldn't everyone have an equal voice, like literally every other election in our country?

No. Our country isn't Federal America, it's the United States.

 

[APU_Fusion]

Not really pasty, more of a farmers tan.

I just have to laugh. Such hubris and willfull ignorance. It’s a State issue but you blithely ignore gerrymandering, minority rule and the threat of the the right of issuing federal abortion ban now that the Supreme Court made it a state issue. Notice when abortion is put to a referendum in your ignorant red states how the vote goes for abortion. It is almost the will of the people are ignored by gerrymandering as Homer stated. Notice how your wonder right wing buddies are now going to try and trick people in Arizona with new referendum to trick Arizona to continue abortion ban. Your buddies are liars and unethical just like you. You are such a winner.

Loser republicans plan to trick Arizona on abortion vote

 

[iRONic]

Of course you feel this way, you're not the one getting your rights taken away. Try having some empathy.

There’s your empathy, right below that post. smfh

 

[APU_Fusion]

No. Our country isn't Federal America, it's the United States.

That is dumbest thing I heard today. What ignorance. Looks at Constitution … looks at Greenman and just laughs. So how bout the republicans proposing federal ban abortion you jackass? State rights until I want federal rights is the Greenman and right nutbag mantra.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't that indicate how close the political split is overall? If it was a popular vote the results would most often be the same, 53 out of 58 times so far.
The states could also choose to distribute their votes based on percentages, the result would be the same.

I don't think so, no, as the electoral college distorts voting incentives. In 90% of states voting for president genuinely has no purpose as the outcome for that state is already certain. I'm sure this causes fewer people to vote. As far as 53 out of 58 goes though, it should be noted that the EC and popular vote has split in 1/3rd of the elections since 2000. The two used to reliably correlate but they no longer do.

Imagine had the votes gone modestly differently in 2020. The EC would have elected someone president who lost by over 7 million votes and about 5 points in the percentages. A system has a serious legitimacy problem when results that large are discounted. This is one reason why literally every other country that implemented an electoral college got rid of it.

 

[fskimospy]

No. Our country isn't Federal America, it's the United States.

This is not the reason the electoral college was adopted and the founders explicitly wanted a national vote for president. They couldn't get agreement from the slave states though, which is why it didn't happen.

This was not enacted due to some high minded ideal of state sovereignty, it was enacted to give more power to those who wanted to own other humans as property.

 

[APU_Fusion]

This is not the reason the electoral college was adopted and the founders explicitly wanted a national vote for president. They couldn't get agreement from the slave states though, which is why it didn't happen.

This was not enacted due to some high minded ideal of state sovereignty, it was enacted to give more power to those who wanted to own other humans as property.

Don’t bother. Greenman is laughably ignorant about truth in history. He doesn’t want to eliminate the electoral college because he knows the important states (I.e. populous and wealthy) would elect presidents and his loser state would have no power as it shouldn’t in an actual Republic. Without electoral college garbage giving undue power to a few states Trump would have no chance as it should. He lost the popular vote in 2016 and was President. That is bullshit

 

[JD50]

No. Our country isn't Federal America, it's the United States.

Why should a person in a small state have a louder voice than a person in a large state?

 

[fskimospy]

Don’t bother. Greenman is laughably ignorant about truth in history. He doesn’t want to eliminate the electoral college because he knows the important states (I.e. populous and wealthy) would elect presidents and his loser state would have no power as it shouldn’t in an actual Republic. Without electoral college garbage giving undue power to a few states Trump would have no chance as it should. He lost the popular vote in 2016 and was President. That is bullshit

Yes I think it's fairly clear that Republicans like the electoral college because without it they would almost never win the presidency. It has zero to do with high minded ideals for federalism and it never did.

 

[JD50]

This is not the reason the electoral college was adopted and the founders explicitly wanted a national vote for president. They couldn't get agreement from the slave states though, which is why it didn't happen.

This was not enacted due to some high minded ideal of state sovereignty, it was enacted to give more power to those who wanted to own other humans as property.

I'm guessing if you went back in time and argued with those people about the unfairness of the system they set up they'd say something like

It is a great system, and I consider myself lucky to have been born in this time and this place.

 

[fskimospy]

Why should a person in a small state have a louder voice than a person in a large state?

If a voter's ballot in Wyoming wasn't worth nearly 4x as much as a voter's ballot in California then presidential candidates would completely ignore Wyoming unlike now where they... completely ignore Wyoming.

 

[APU_Fusion]

Yes I think it's fairly clear that Republicans like the electoral college because without it they would almost never win the presidency. It has zero to do with high minded ideals for federalism and it never did.

The state’s right party only wants Federalism when Republicans are Presidents I.e. Trump going after California for its vehicle emissions standards,

Trump rule gets rescinded

 

[APU_Fusion]

If a voter's ballot in Wyoming wasn't worth nearly 4x as much as a voter's ballot in California then presidential candidates would completely ignore Wyoming unlike now where they... completely ignore Wyoming.

And that is correct. That is what Senate is for. Not California’s fault or Texas. Can you say the same for the few swing states that decide elections irrespective of popular vote?

 

[fskimospy]

And that is correct. That is what Senate is for. Not California’s fault or Texas.

Oh I was being sarcastic - I'm saying that despite the EC giving Wyoming a lot of additional representation it does absolutely nothing to make Wyoming relevant in presidential elections.

What makes a state relevant is one thing and one thing alone, how close to 50/50 the population is split. Size, geography, GDP, blah blah, all of it's irrelevant. Partisan split is all that matters.

 

[APU_Fusion]

Oh I was being sarcastic - I'm saying that despite the EC giving Wyoming a lot of additional representation it does absolutely nothing to make Wyoming relevant in presidential elections.

What makes a state relevant is one thing and one thing alone, how close to 50/50 the population is split. Size, geography, GDP, blah blah, all of it's irrelevant. Partisan split is all that matters.

I was just curious about your thoughts about the few swing states so maybe Greenman could see another poster call out is trolling garbage.

 

[JD50]

If we got rid of the EC altogether and just gave each person the amount of votes they would have if the EC was still in place, it would highlight the absurdity of it. Imagine if some liberal in Wyoming literally had 4 votes while a conservative in rural California only had 1 vote, lol.

 

[Pens1566]

And people still "debate" with Greeny ... /shakes head

 

[fskimospy]

If we got rid of the EC altogether and just gave each person the amount of votes they would have if the EC was still in place, it would highlight the absurdity of it. Imagine if some liberal in Wyoming literally had 4 votes while a conservative in rural California only had 1 vote, lol.

All I want to know is if someone, anyone can provide me with a cogent argument as to why the EC is good.

 

[JD50]

All I want to know is if someone, anyone can provide me with a cogent argument as to why the EC is good.

"It is a great system, and I consider myself lucky to have been born in this time and this place."

 

[iRONic]

Beat me to it… 😝