• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Barbara Boxer Launching Senate Bill To Abolish Electoral College

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 8, 2012
602
0
540
but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?
No, it wouldn't make them not matter. It would make them matter as much as every other vote.
What about the millions of Democrat voters in Texas? Or the millions of Republican voters in California? Because right now, their votes don't matter.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
I'd be more in favor of increasing the size of the House of Representatives so it can actually be distributed accurately according to population, which would both make the EC more fair (Since it's based on number of state reps in Congress) and also give larger states the representation they deserve in Congress.
 

Deku Tree

Member
Jun 13, 2004
34,503
0
1,495
^ yeah they should double the number of representatives in the house and get rid of the senate. States with three electoral votes have no business having two senators.

I'd prefer a parliamentary system like they have in the U.K. TBH

EC plus winner take all is garbage.
 

Steel

Banned
Jun 20, 2013
19,664
1
0
Can someone explain why this is a better idea than just retooling or adjusting the EC system? I live in a big state and loath the election results, but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?

A lot more votes don't matter because of the EC now as would be disenfranchised under the popular vote. Like, there's only a handful of states where your vote could even make a difference in the presidential election.
 

UncleSporky

Member
Sep 22, 2006
11,737
6
1,380
It would mean one person means one vote, which is a core tenet of democracy. A vote from a rural state would matter just as much as a vote in a populated state. It would probably increase the amount of voting by a pretty significant margin because the "why should I vote when my state is going to pick [candidate] anyway" argument would be a non-starter.

Right, but it would also mean candidates would only campaign in heavily populated areas, completely ignoring sparsely-populated states and the interests of those living there.

And yet with the current system, candidates only campaign in swing states. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 

Deku Tree

Member
Jun 13, 2004
34,503
0
1,495
I'm tired of the party that gets the most congressional votes, and the most votes for president constantly losing elections. Where is the will of the people?
 
Sep 23, 2011
13,112
1
0
Right, but it would also mean candidates would only campaign in heavily populated areas, completely ignoring sparsely-populated states and the interests of those living there.

And yet with the current system, candidates only campaign in swing states. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There has an approach that allows us to treat this like a slider and adjust it to some sort of middle ground balance.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,320
1
660
I'd be more in favor of increasing the size of the House of Representatives so it can actually be distributed accurately according to population, which would both make the EC more fair (Since it's based on number of state reps in Congress) and also give larger states the representation they deserve in Congress.
That's actually a super clever way of fixing this.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
^ yeah they should double the number of representatives in the house and get rid of the senate. States with three electoral votes have no business having two senators.

I'd prefer a parliamentary system like they have in the U.K. TBH

EC plus winner take all is garbage.
You don't need to double the number of reps to get reasonable population representation.

And no, we shouldn't get rid of the Senate. The point of the Senate is to protect the interests of the less populous states.

What we need to do is fix the current nonsense where California has a dozen less representatives than it should have because we gotta keep the number at 435 based on tradition... A tradition started when we had 48 states, I might add.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,885
1
0
Can someone explain why this is a better idea than just retooling or adjusting the EC system? I live in a big state and loath the election results, but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?

au contraire,

it would make ALL VOICES in rural states count.

Progressives voters in Red States would matter.

Conservatives voters in Blue States would matters

Everyone would matter, even African-Americans in Mississippi would matter
 

BlackLagoon

Member
Dec 15, 2012
2,701
0
0
Right, but it would also mean candidates would only campaign in heavily populated areas, completely ignoring sparsely-populated states and the interests of those living there.

And yet with the current system, candidates only campaign in swing states. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Keep in mind that smaller states also still get disproportionate representation in the senate, which is probably more valuable than a bit more pandering from the presidential candidates when they're campaigning. It'll ultimately be Congress that needs to make the big decisions when it comes to domestic matters anyway,
 

Adaren

Member
Jan 3, 2013
3,785
0
415
Can someone explain why this is a better idea than just retooling or adjusting the EC system? I live in a big state and loath the election results, but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?

To add on to what others have said, there are already rural states (e.g. Oklahoma, Idaho) where voters are worth hundreds of times less than voters in swing states. Here's one analysis of it.

Random thought: if we're concerned about politicians not paying attention to smaller groups without the EC, then maybe we should go all out and just give everyone a vote multiplier based on how many minority groups they belong to. If you live in a rural area, x10. If you're black, x8. If you're an immigrant, x8. LGBT, x14. etc.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Biggest issue with just going popular vote...

new york city
LA
chicago


those 3 CITIES combined, -as of 2013 had 15 million people in it.
take out 25% for under 18's 11.25 million 60% of them vote 6+ million voting... say 70% vote for one candidate

5million votes is higher population than the lowest (population wise) 5 STATES combined.

also there is the urban vs rural vote, urban areas overwhelmingly vote liberal/democratic

rural areas overwhelmingly vote conservative/republican.

even blood red republican areas, the urban areas IN those red states vote overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

if implemented ONLY a liberal democrat (as constituted right now) would ever get elected president- it would be virtually impossible for them to lose the election.(hillary got slightly more votes than trump, however, trump was not a good candidate for repubs and hillary imo was not a good candidate for democrats,, besides being a woman)

look at the make up of the democratic party in the house of reps,,, about 1/3rd of all democrats there are either from MA, CA or NY, democrats have major issues besides just the presidential race.

This is all you need to illustrate how weak the argument for the electoral college is. It's unfair to go by the popular vote, because MORE PEOPLE favor the Democratic party.
 

BronsonLee

Member
Oct 30, 2011
50,961
2
0
2016: *Dems lose electoral college* We must ban the electoral college.
2020: *Dems lose popular vote* We must ban the popular vote.
2024: The new President is decided by BronsonLee



RIP Canada. It's been a good run.

I think you mean Bronsonia
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,885
1
0
the EC is unfair for a voter who votes the opposite way than the majority of his Safe State

having Voter Tunout hover between 52% and 54% is a shame.

the Popular Vote would help boost Voter Turnout where a voter who supports the minority party within his Safe State can have his voice heard.

and that includes Republican voters living in Liberal cities, all votes would matter
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
2016: *Dems lose electoral college* We must ban the electoral college.
2020: *Dems lose popular vote* We must ban the popular vote.
2024: The new President is decided by BronsonLee

The Electoral College has actually been getting heavy criticism ever since the 2000 clusterfuck.
 

tkscz

Member
Oct 17, 2011
9,672
1,885
975
2016: *Dems lose electoral college* We must ban the electoral college.
2020: *Dems lose popular vote* We must ban the popular vote.
2024: The new President is decided by BronsonLee

I know this is a joke but basically this. Did they forget Obama won 2012 so fucking fast because of the electoral college? True, he got the popular vote as well, but we didn't know that at first. Had this been flipped though, I don't doubt the right wouldn't be doing the same.

This is all you need to illustrate how weak the argument for the electoral college is. It's unfair to go by the popular vote, because MORE PEOPLE favor the Democratic party.

The point of the EC is to make sure everyone's voice is heard and most populated areas don't basically rule the entire country. You'd have those areas suddenly get flooded with people just to even that shit out.
 

theCalamity

Member
Mar 27, 2016
1,143
1
265
This is all you need to illustrate how weak the argument for the electoral college is. It's unfair to go by the popular vote, because MORE PEOPLE favor the Democratic party.

It also forgets that Republicans have won the popular vote before.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,740
1
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
Biggest issue with just going popular vote...

new york city
LA
chicago


those 3 CITIES combined, -as of 2013 had 15 million people in it.
take out 25% for under 18's 11.25 million 60% of them vote 6+ million voting... say 70% vote for one candidate

5million votes is higher population than the lowest (population wise) 5 STATES combined.

also there is the urban vs rural vote, urban areas overwhelmingly vote liberal/democratic

rural areas overwhelmingly vote conservative/republican.

even blood red republican areas, the urban areas IN those red states vote overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

if implemented ONLY a liberal democrat (as constituted right now) would ever get elected president- it would be virtually impossible for them to lose the election.(hillary got slightly more votes than trump, however, trump was not a good candidate for repubs and hillary imo was not a good candidate for democrats,, besides being a woman)

look at the make up of the democratic party in the house of reps,,, about 1/3rd of all democrats there are either from MA, CA or NY, democrats have major issues besides just the presidential race.

The math doesn't work out to only run for the big cities and win, though.

The Electoral College does not make candidates visit small states. All of the small population states are ignored every election cycle. Hell, the candidates don't even regularly visit the big states right now, because they own a safe majority in them and have no need to.

As I pointed out in another thread, if every registered voter voted, it's possible to win the Electoral College even though you lost the PV by a 80 million vote deficit
 

kiunchbb

www.dictionary.com
Aug 6, 2009
5,772
240
1,060
This is all you need to illustrate how weak the argument for the electoral college is. It's unfair to go by the popular vote, because MORE PEOPLE favor the Democratic party.

It is president of united "states", and majorities of the states representative wanted Trump to be the president.
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
Jun 6, 2004
18,513
2
0
I live in a 3 EV dark red state (North Dakota). Trump got 70% of the vote here. I vote progressive, and I honestly may as well not show up with the current system.
 

Bizazedo

Member
Nov 13, 2010
7,021
0
680
Well, if they did abolish it, it would make Hilary's campaign stops look more logical.

California, New York, California, New York, California, New York....:).
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Feb 19, 2008
44,007
7
0
This isn't going to happen.

This is good for the larger states, so they'd be for it, but requires the smaller states to give up electoral power. In order to get this passed, you would need to get like 20 something of the smaller states to give up that power for no benefit to themselves.

So, yeah, it's a waste of time.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
The point of the EC is to make sure everyone's voice is heard and most populated areas don't basically rule the entire country. You'd have those areas suddenly get flooded with people just to even that shit out.

The electoral college not only encourages people in "safe" states to not vote, but it disproportionately places candidate attention on "swing" states. This idea that it somehow gives everyone a voice is garbage if you spend more than five seconds thinking about it. And hell, you're still effectively saying that someone who isn't from a large city should have a more powerful vote by virtue of where they park their ass at night. It's idiotic.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Can someone explain why this is a better idea than just retooling or adjusting the EC system? I live in a big state and loath the election results, but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?

Small states already don't matter in the current system. New Hampshire is the only small state that gets any attention right now. Only competitve big states benefit from the Electoral College. We elect the president of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
 
Sep 12, 2013
5,442
0
0
The argument that rural voters should be heard on the same level as voters from dense urban areas is baffling. It's essentially saying that a rural person's vote is worth more than an urban person's vote.

Farming does not need to span all the arable land in the US. In fact, we should be reforesting most of that farm land, get rid of the farm bill, and switch to a primarily vegetarian diet by making it more expensive to rear and feed livestock.

This would have multiple positive knock on effects of loosening the grip on power the rural religious racist right (RRRR) has in the US, mitigating climate change, lessening animal cruelty, and making people live healthier lives.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Why would the Republicans be incentivized to change that, especially after this outcome?

Republicans in blue states have incentive to change this in order to make local races more competitive. Also to get greater attention to their state in terms of presidential candidates currying votes in states that are currently not competitive. They can make promises to support the oil industry in Oklahoma, for example.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Small states already don't matter in the current system. New Hampshire is the only small state that gets any attention right now. Only competitve big states benefit from the Electoral College. We elect the president of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
Texas, New York, and California don't matter. Montana and Delaware don't matter.

Yeah, the system's kinda fucked up.
 

tkscz

Member
Oct 17, 2011
9,672
1,885
975
The electoral college not only encourages people in "safe" states to not vote, but it disproportionately places candidate attention on "swing" states. This idea that it somehow gives everyone a voice is garbage if you spend more than five seconds thinking about it. And hell, you're still effectively saying that someone who isn't from a large city should have a more powerful vote by virtue of where they park their ass at night. It's idiotic.

And without it you'd encourage people in "non-safe" states not to vote as they'd essentially have no reason to do it. Popular vote isn't bad, but it can lead to stagnation. Why have a vote if you know who is going to win based on knowing who the majority will immediately vote for? At that point, just appoint the person.
 

Lenardo

Banned
Jun 11, 2009
695
0
0
IMO the EC should change to proportional with caveats for those low ec vote states

top 2 candidates in a state only get EC votes

the winner of the state ec vote HAS to get a min of 1 more vote than the 2nd place vote getter

those weird 1 vote areas, winner take all.
3 vote state, winner gets 2 loser 1
4 state vote winner gets 3 loser gets 1
5 state 3-2
6 4-2
7 4-3
8 5-3
9 5-4
etc.

going proportional route this past election makes the vote CLOSER, but trump would still win ~280 votes.
 

BiggNife

Member
Aug 15, 2007
9,512
3
1,180
It is president of united "states", and majorities of the states representative wanted Trump to be the president.

This is a flawed argument.

If the president was determined by popular vote, every vote from every state would still matter. In the case of the EC, a number of "swing states" matter far more than the rest of the country, which isn't exactly fair.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
And without it you'd encourage people in "non-safe" not to vote as they'd essentially have no reason to do it. Popular vote isn't bad, but it can lead to stagnation. Why have a vote if you know who is going to win based on knowing who the majority will immediately vote for? At that point, just appoint the person.

? Why would a popular vote election dissuade someone from voting?
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,740
1
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
And without it you'd encourage people in "non-safe" states not to vote as they'd essentially have no reason to do it. Popular vote isn't bad, but it can lead to stagnation. Why have a vote if you know who is going to win based on knowing who the majority will immediately vote for? At that point, just appoint the person.

Given that the EC has happened to match up with the PV 93% of the time now, I don't see how it'd stagnate anything to just go pure PV.
 

Enduin

No bald cap? Lies!
Nov 29, 2006
13,304
1
1,305
Never going to pass, but it will hopefully get some people talking and thinking about it and maybe in 2 from now more people will support candidates looking to at the least reform the EC and electoral process at large.

We are stuck with a really shitty election system in the US and there are so many better alternatives for just about every facet of the process out there that we could choose from. We use to be known for innovation and being at the forefront of new ideas, but when it comes to one of the most important rights and responsibilities of our society we are stuck in the past in large part due to ignorance and meaningless tradition.
 

CrispyBoar

Banned
Dec 31, 2015
3,086
0
0
Yes, it needs to go. Badly.

The candidate that has the least popular vote should not win. Period.

If there was no EC, we wouldn't have gotten Trump or Bush.
 

Netherscourge

Banned
Sep 13, 2013
12,532
0
0
Good luck getting an Electoral College system that only benefits Republicans abolished by Republicans who would decide it's fate.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Given that the EC has happened to match up with the PV 93% of the time now, I don't see how it'd stagnate anything to just go pure PV.

The argument seems to assume that Democrats will always get the popular vote. Which is weird for two reasons.

1. It ignores that Democrats have not always gotten the popular vote.
2. It begs the question, if Democrats are now always winning the popular vote, what does that say about Republicans?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.