• 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.

Peltz

Member
Apr 26, 2014
16,507
15
575
So wrong. It gave voice to those outside the cities. That is what it is designed to do.
Don't blame the EC. Blame Hillary for not appealing to those citizens.

Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.

If people aren't interested enough to leave their tiny rural communities of 10,000 or less people, they shouldn't have any say in the direction the world takes outside of their city council and high school football team.

Those are not American values and not a productive way of thinking.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.
Except it doesn't? It's tyranny of the majority on a state level for most states.

More Republicans voted in California than in Pennsylvania. The Republicans who voted in California had no impact on the Presidential Election though. The minority of voters in California doesn't matter.
 
Nov 12, 2012
1,878
2
480
If people aren't interested enough to leave their tiny rural communities of 10,000 or less people, they shouldn't have any say in the direction the world takes outside of their city council and high school football team.

Can you try being an even bigger elitist urban snob? That'll show them flyover folk!!
 
May 15, 2013
11,355
0
0
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.

"this time" was the second time we got fucked over within 16 years. Since 2000 there is one administration that got established with a won PV and got bookended by two administrations that didn't. And this time there are several demographics in the US that are now terrified about what state their rights are going to be in by 2020 over a man that the majority of the country didn't even vote for.

I can't look at this and not think that there's something wrong here.
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
Fun Fact: Obama beat Hillary in the same manner in the 2008 election primary. She had the popular votes but he won by the electoral vote.

The electoral college works. It's better than a popular vote which is really just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. This is a large and diverse country. If you want to run it as one single-minded unit, you'll first do some good to eliminate states and their different qualities that define them... Their governments, their ideologies and culture... Yeah, good luck with that.

It's great watching how naive, no real life experience, arrogant, millennials think they know better than the brilliant minds of those extremely more versed in government in our founders, than they will ever be.
 

Surfinn

Member
Nov 12, 2015
11,362
0
300
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

I'm glad it protected us against candidates like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who would have decimated the rights of minorities and people who are already struggling in the United States. And elected candidates that are champions of said people like George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

Basic civics.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Fun Fact: Obama beat Hillary in the same manner in the 2008 election primary. She had the popular votes but he won by the electoral vote.

The electoral college works. It's better than a popular vote which is really just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. This is a large and diverse country. If you want to run it as one single-minded unit, you'll first do some good to eliminate states and their different qualities that define them... Their governments, their ideologies and culture... Yeah, good luck with that.

It's great watching how naive, no real life experience, arrogant, millennials think they know better than the brilliant minds of those extremely more versed in government in our founders, than they will ever be.
Did the Senate and state legislatures just stop existing?

We have plenty of systems in place that give individual states their own say in governance. The Senate is an enormous amount of power delegated to states on a national level.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Fun Fact: Obama beat Hillary in the same manner in the 2008 election primary. She had the popular votes but he won by the electoral vote.

Primaries to general is not apples-to-apples. You can't really look at the popular vote for the primaries because different states and state parties have different systems to choosing delegates.

It's great watching how naive, no real life experience, arrogant, millennials think they know better than the brilliant minds of those extremely more versed in government in our founders, than they will ever be.

Yes, the brilliant founders and their.... a black person is worth 2/5ths of a white person. And you know, the slavery.

Clearly, flawless individuals who have never made a mistake. Ever.
 

Jacob

Member
Nov 29, 2011
4,002
0
0
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.

The Founders themselves didn't think it was a particularly brilliant system, given that they abandoned the original plan as soon as the first contested Presidential election (1796) rolled around.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.
.

There's absolutely nothing brilliant about the system. Small states already get outsized representation in the legislature, to a comically high degree in the Senate. Exactly why should they have it in a presidential election, especially when it encourages people to NOT vote, and directly makes the votes of some more powerful than the votes of others? Exactly WHY is a voter in North Dakota more important than a voter Texas?
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
"this time" was the second time we got fucked over within 16 years. Since 2000 there is one administration that got established with a won PV and got bookended by two administrations that didn't. And this time there are several demographics in the US that are now terrified about what state their rights are going to be in by 2020 over a man that the majority of the country didn't even vote for.

I can't look at this and not think that there's something wrong here.

If anyone was fucked it was the Democrats by their corrupt leadership. A perfectly valid and presidential candidate railroaded by his own party. The head of that very party resigns in humiliation (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) and his opponent immediately turns around and hires her for her campaign.... Donna Brazile is then found to be cheating, Hillary has no problem with it and never makes mention of it. And thanks to the Project Veritas project and videos we find the elaborate scheme to interfere with the Republican candidate's rallies and cause unrest. And apparently, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The democrats fucked themselves. If anything, it shows they're hardly interested in an organic democracy. Manipulate, manipulate and manipulate... That probably should be their motto.

Hopefully, they can rebuild but for now, there is no one leader on their side that anyone is enthusiastic enough to get behind... Hillary and her shenanigans pretty much dismantled the party. It'll be interesting to see how they recover.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.

Please tell me you aren't serious.
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
Primaries to general is not apples-to-apples. You can't really look at the popular vote for the primaries because different states and state parties have different systems to choosing delegates.



Yes, the brilliant founders and their.... a black person is worth 2/5ths of a white person. And you know, the slavery.

Clearly, flawless individuals who have never made a mistake. Ever.

Who said they weren't flawed? Lots of brilliant minds in one area are flawed in others.

When it came to government and an accurate reflection of the people they knew what was and is best.
 

Riposte

Member
Sep 21, 2010
27,718
0
640
videogames?
twitter.com
Going straight to the popular vote means removing power from the non-urban, less populated middle states and increasing it in the urban coastal ones. The recent defeat has a lot to do with states flipping away from Democrats because they felt they were being ignored. Is the goal then to implement a system where Democrats can get away with ignoring them more?

Given this is a symbolic gesture, as in she knows this can't actually be achieved, this seems like a mistake. EDIT: As a symbolic gesture, it's a middle finger; a bad idea in the best of times and Democrats are currently in the worst of times.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,885
1
0
Exactly. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. It's basic civics.

It fucked us over this time, but it's actually a brilliant system.



Those are not American values and not a productive way of thinking.

Tyranny of the majority of Rural Voters
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Who said they weren't flawed? Lots of brilliant minds in one area are flawed in others.

When it came to government and an accurate reflection of the people they knew what was and is best.

You're trying to lecture millennials about how stupid and naive they are while propping up the founders as being some paragons of brilliance, even though they were hypocritical on day one of the country's founding when they talked about equality for all men while black people were in bondage and sold as property.

Get off your high horse. Don't appeal to authority, especially not the founders. They were men. Not gods.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Who said they weren't flawed? Lots of brilliant minds in one area are flawed in others.

When it came to government and an accurate reflection of the people they knew what was and is best.
Uh, no, they didn't.

The fact that we have states with faithless electors laws and faithless electors are so rare today is a good example. The entire concept of an electoral college is pointless in modern America; even if you think states should be represented by a winner take all system per state, voting for a slate of electors who then cast their votes instead of directly for the candidate unnecessarily complicates that process unless those electors are expected to have autonomy.
 

Cth

Member
Dec 9, 2008
4,172
0
875
Charlotte, NC
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.

People can be swayed by charismatic people. Promise someone something without any method of holding them accountable and you'll see that type of campaigning increase.

Turning America further into an American Idol type society where everyone votes for who can be marketed the best is a bad idea.

Or to put it another way, sure, in two cases it would have helped elect a Gore or Clinton, but would you be so adamant if roles were reversed this election? If Trump had the popular vote and Clinton the EC victory?

If you say no, you're not serious about fixing the system, your bias is showing.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Going straight to the popular vote means removing power from the non-urban, less populated middle states and increasing it in the urban coastal ones.

Yes. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The middlest states with no coast whatsoever.

All the swing states are near the damn coasts and have major urban centers. Come on, man.
 

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
May 2, 2006
3,583
0
0
If Democrats were smart, they would target enough blue or battleground states to make sure the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact helps them win.

They have to run the same strategy that GOP ran for 2010: win enough state legislatures to pass this thing.

Unless and until there's major party realignment, Democrats are gonna be favored to win the popular vote for a while.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,885
1
0
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.

People can be swayed by charismatic people. Promise someone something without any method of holding them accountable and you'll see that type of campaigning increase.

Turning America further into an American Idol type society where everyone votes for who can be marketed the best is a bad idea.

Or to put it another way, sure, in two cases it would have helped elect a Gore or Clinton, but would you be so adamant if roles were reversed this election? If Trump had the popular vote and Clinton the EC victory?

If you say no, you're not serious about fixing the system, your bias is showing.
More like what we just got with Celebrity Apprentice, am right?
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.

People can be swayed by charismatic people.

The Electoral College gave us Donald Fucking Trump, the most Idiocracy-like president ever elected.

I can't understand how people can defend the Electoral College like this when it directly contradicts REALITY.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.

People can be swayed by charismatic people. Promise someone something without any method of holding them accountable and you'll see that type of campaigning increase.

Turning America further into an American Idol type society where everyone votes for who can be marketed the best is a bad idea.

Or to put it another way, sure, in two cases it would have helped elect a Gore or Clinton, but would you be so adamant if roles were reversed this election? If Trump had the popular vote and Clinton the EC victory?

If you say no, you're not serious about fixing the system, your bias is showing.

Yes. All votes should matter equally.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.
Okay, then get a dictator.

We vote directly for Senators by state. Nobody complains.

We vote directly for Governor by state. Nobody complains.

People are so concerned about tyranny of the majority when the largest check by far to national tyranny of the majority (The Senate) isn't being touched.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
The level of cognitive dissonance in this thread is so high it makes my brain explode.

Talking about the tyranny of the majority, about the need to not focus on coastal states, about American Idol presidents.

And we just elected Donald Trump.

What exactly did the Electoral College save us from, here?
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
The level of cognitive dissonance in this thread is so high it makes my brain explode.

Talking about the tyranny of the majority, about the need to not focus on coastal states, about American Idol presidents.

And we just elected Donald Trump.

What exactly did the Electoral College save us from, here?

I can hear the common retort right now:

"Well why should places with PEOPLE get all the say?"
 

theCalamity

Member
Mar 27, 2016
1,143
1
265
Or to put it another way, sure, in two cases it would have helped elect a Gore or Clinton, but would you be so adamant if roles were reversed this election? If Trump had the popular vote and Clinton the EC victory?

If you say no, you're not serious about fixing the system, your bias is showing.

YES! I would definitely be arguing for a popular vote if this situation was reversed.
 

Surfinn

Member
Nov 12, 2015
11,362
0
300
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.

People can be swayed by charismatic people. Promise someone something without any method of holding them accountable and you'll see that type of campaigning increase.

Turning America further into an American Idol type society where everyone votes for who can be marketed the best is a bad idea.

Or to put it another way, sure, in two cases it would have helped elect a Gore or Clinton, but would you be so adamant if roles were reversed this election? If Trump had the popular vote and Clinton the EC victory?

If you say no, you're not serious about fixing the system, your bias is showing.

I'm not sure if you noticed but we're already there. The EC does nothing to prevent this which is why people are trying to get it abolished.

If Donald Trump gets elected in your system of voting, something is wrong. Looks like the EC was created at least partially to try and keep people like this from being elected but it happened anyway. And it's happened before. It doesn't work.

The level of cognitive dissonance in this thread is so high it makes my brain explode.

Talking about the tyranny of the majority, about the need to not focus on coastal states, about American Idol presidents.

And we just elected Donald Trump.

What exactly did the Electoral College save us from, here?

Yeah.
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
Primaries to general is not apples-to-apples. You can't really look at the popular vote for the primaries because different states and state parties have different systems to choosing delegates.



Yes, the brilliant founders and their.... a black person is worth 2/5ths of a white person. And you know, the slavery.

Clearly, flawless individuals who have never made a mistake. Ever.

You're trying to lecture millennials about how stupid and naive they are while propping up the founders as being some paragons of brilliance, even though they were hypocritical on day one of the country's founding when they talked about equality for all men while black people were in bondage and sold as property.

Get off your high horse. Don't appeal to authority, especially not the founders. They were men. Not gods.

Trump won the popular vote in the states that mattered, didn't he? The system the way it is is as perfect as it could be. Electorates determined by the total population of the state.

An outright rule by popular vote would be a step backwards.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Trump won the popular vote in the states that mattered, didn't he? The system the way it is is as perfect as it could be. Electorates determined by the total population of the state.

An outright rule by popular vote would be a step backwards.

How? Explain.
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
The Electoral College gave us Donald Fucking Trump, the most Idiocracy-like president ever elected.

I can't understand how people can defend the Electoral College like this when it directly contradicts REALITY.

Or your take on reality is flawed? Yeah, we got DFT... Thank HRC and the DNC for that. The DNC "chose" poorly while the RNC apparently chose, wisely.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,885
1
0
Trump won the popular vote in the states that mattered, didn't he? The system the way it is is as perfect as it could be. Electorates determined by the total population of the state.

An outright rule by popular vote would be a step backwards.
why would a Purple State (New Hampshire or Florida) matter more than any other state like Wyoming or California?
 

fredrancour

Member
Jun 11, 2009
10,902
0
0
Abolishing the electoral college would cement an Idiocracy future.

People can be swayed by charismatic people. Promise someone something without any method of holding them accountable and you'll see that type of campaigning increase.

Turning America further into an American Idol type society where everyone votes for who can be marketed the best is a bad idea.

Or to put it another way, sure, in two cases it would have helped elect a Gore or Clinton, but would you be so adamant if roles were reversed this election? If Trump had the popular vote and Clinton the EC victory?

If you say no, you're not serious about fixing the system, your bias is showing.

that's literally what happened here though. it just only had to happen in a certain selection of states under the EC system.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Or your take on reality is flawed? Yeah, we got DFT... Thank HRC and the DNC for that. The DNC "chose" poorly while the RNC apparently chose, wisely.

Don't deflect. You have other arguments to defend.
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
What the fuck does that mean? "States that matter"?

New York doesn't matter? California doesn't matter?

All states matter, but you're aware of swing states, right? Ones that can go either way and have a large influence over the total electoral count. Yes, All States Matter but some matter more, even Kalifornia. But in this case, he received more of the swing states making Kalifornia's disconnected elite votes, meaningless in the overall election.

And for the record, to assume all things would have been done the same way under a popular vote system is a bit unfair. Had the objectives been different I'm sure both campaigns would have been run very differently. But speculation is fun, I get that.
 

Karl2177

Member
Jul 3, 2010
9,343
0
695
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.
An interesting thing related to this is how reapportionment works in the US. Because the census happens every 10 years, but reapportionment doesn't happen until the year after. Theoretically the elections that would be most unfair in terms of accurate electoral representation are the 00, 20, 40, 60, 80 elections and the most fair are the 12, 32, 52, 72, 92 elections.
 

Surfinn

Member
Nov 12, 2015
11,362
0
300
Or your take on reality is flawed? Yeah, we got DFT... Thank HRC and the DNC for that. The DNC "chose" poorly while the RNC apparently chose, wisely.

The performance of the Clinton campaign has nothing to do with the principle here.

No one knew what this was actually going to happen before the election then suddenly GAF became campaign experts overnight and many turned on Hillary simply because she lost.

Not a single person reputable figure mentioned any of this publicly (that she would lose badly because of X Y and Z) until it actually happened, because.. well no one thought it would.

It was a totally unpredictable election and like I said it's an irrelevant point.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
I believe that's the intent here.
Wow, we're really gonna stop the small states from mattering when they have the same power in one half of the legislative branch as large states.
This is false.
Yep. It's based on the number of state representatives, which is set to two for the Senate and isn't actually completely proportional for the House. Even if it were completely proportional for the House, the two Senate seats mean it's still not completely proportional.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
All states matter, but you're aware of swing states, right? Ones that can go either way and have a large influence over the total electoral count. Yes, All States Matter but some matter more, even Kalifornia. But in this case, he received more of the swing states making Kalifornia's disconnected elite votes, meaningless in the overall election.

Is this suppose to be a defense of the Electoral College? I'm not even sure what your point is. You favor a system where swing states matter more and non-swing states matter less?
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
How? Explain.

Ad Populum...

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

So, if it doesn't work in philosophy, why would it work in politics, which is just politicians espousing certain philosophies, essentially...???

Answer: It would not.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
All states matter, but you're aware of swing states, right? Ones that can go either way and have a large influence over the total electoral count. Yes, All States Matter but some matter more, even Kalifornia. But in this case, he received more of the swing states making Kalifornia's disconnected elite votes, meaningless in the overall election.

And for the record, to assume all things would have been done the same way under a popular vote system is a bit unfair. Had the objectives been different I'm sure both campaigns would have been run very differently. But speculation is fun, I get that.

if the campaign was about getting the popular vote, you're absolutely right, everything would be different. Republicans would begin campaigning heavily in safe blue states, and vice versa, because suddenly nationwide turnout is vital. Republican voters in California suddenly realize their vote matters, as well as Democratic voters in Mississippi. And you no longer have a system that says that the land you live on determines how powerful your vote is. I'm not understanding how any person who applies any critical thought can actually defend the electoral college.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.