• 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.

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
8
405
Burnaby, BC
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.

Please read up on Michigan and Florida in the 2008 primary
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
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.

Jesus...is this your actual answer?
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
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.

So...... you're anti-Democracy?
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
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.
We elect our state governors by direct popular vote. I don't see you complaining there.
 

Dirca

Member
Mar 5, 2016
1,504
4
220


I fully support the EC
 

OneLifeCycle

Neo Member
Feb 4, 2014
120
0
0
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.

She and her running mate couldn't sell out high school gymnasiums... Trump had 20k or more at every one of his.... But the race was so close!!!

Many of us knew those polls were bullshit. Some people don't want to report who they'll vote for... Others simply poll more democrats than republicans. The system is completely left leaning.

It wasn't unpredictable... The guy that's called so many elections correctly in the past called this for Trump way, way back. The pundits just refused to listen and reorganize.... They just covered their ears and polled more democrats to feel better.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
She and her running mate couldn't sell out high school gymnasiums... Trump had 20k or more at every one of his.... But the race was so close!!!

Many of us knew those polls were bullshit. Some people don't want to report who they'll vote for... Others simply poll more democrats than republicans. The system is completely left leaning.

It wasn't unpredictable... The guy that's called so many elections correctly in the past called this for Trump way, way back. The pundits just refused to listen and reorganize.... They just covered their ears and polled more democrats to feel better.
What does this actually have to do with the topic?
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
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.
You should read up on those founders, a lot of their rationales and assumptions for which they designed the electoral college proved false. And the current electoral college is a fairly strong deviation from their original intent.

I wouldn't lecture others until you have the facts straight. Especially if your argument rests on them knowing best(as if they were a monolithic group to begin with).
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Absolutely. As stated before...

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Being outnumbered doesn't always indicate right/wrong.
Then you should hate the US Constitution for leaving elements up to Democracy.

Trump got elected thanks to Demoracy... A less democratic process than a national popular vote, sure, but still a democratic process.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
So, you fold then?

Well I don't think you have an actual defense of the electoral college. Your argument against the popular vote was a boiler plate complaint that would apply to democracy in general, you've ignored points on the positive effects of using the popular vote, and arguments of the negative effects of the electoral college. I really think you're one page away from simply throwing out an appeal to tradition.

So yeah, I fold. Or at least, I'm done talking to you.
 

SporeCrawler

Member
Apr 26, 2013
9,001
0
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.
which would force tepublicans to adapt and take more liberal views to cater to urban voters
Thats how democracy work
 

anonymous_abc

Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,548
0
810
What's with all the "wasted time and effort" posts, should politicians only dedicate time to topics that are sure to pass?
 

antonz

Member
May 12, 2010
22,354
0
0
The Electoral College as it is basically starts every election rigged in the Democrats favor. The Democrats have to pull a Hillary and fuck up royally to basically lose.

The Republicans have the hardest path in the Electoral College. They not only have to run the entire selection of battleground states they then need to take Blue states.
 

Havok1313

Member
Jan 20, 2014
335
0
0
Northern Va
I this this would have a hard time of happening even with democrats in control to be honest.

They way more important thing right now is putting term limits on all of Congress. I can't see it happening until we get a lot of younger people elected though.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
The Republicans have the hardest path in the Electoral College. They not only have to run the entire selection of battleground states they then need to take Blue states.

This assumes that "Blue states" are actually "Blue States" and not purple states that went blue a few times in a row.

This kind of thinking is how Clinton lost the election.

There were many more scenarios where Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College than scenarios where Trump won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
The best argument for the Electoral College I've seen is convenience; candidates campaign in fewer places (less money spent on elections) and we in most cases don't have to wait potentially weeks or months for the result.
The Electoral College as it is basically starts every election rigged in the Democrats favor. The Democrats have to pull a Hillary and fuck up royally to basically lose.

The Republicans have the hardest path in the Electoral College. They not only have to run the entire selection of battleground states they then need to take Blue states.
This doesn't really matter to the arguments against the Electoral College.
 

Surfinn

Member
Nov 12, 2015
11,362
0
300
She and her running mate couldn't sell out high school gymnasiums... Trump had 20k or more at every one of his.... But the race was so close!!!

Many of us knew those polls were bullshit. Some people don't want to report who they'll vote for... Others simply poll more democrats than republicans. The system is completely left leaning.

It wasn't unpredictable... The guy that's called so many elections correctly in the past called this for Trump way, way back. The pundits just refused to listen and reorganize.... They just covered their ears and polled more democrats to feel better.
Considering you can't even stay on topic without referencing high school gyms as a standard for determining how well a candidate is performing.. I think I'm out too. This convo is going nowhere. Good luck.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
The Electoral College as it is basically starts every election rigged in the Democrats favor. The Democrats have to pull a Hillary and fuck up royally to basically lose.

The Republicans have the hardest path in the Electoral College. They not only have to run the entire selection of battleground states they then need to take Blue states.

I mean a national popular vote would also be in Democrats favor, seeing as there are much more registered Democrats then Republicans. Or just more people in general that lean Democratic over Republican.

Hence why Republicans are so concerned with barriers for voting and keeping the ability to gerrymander.
 

Riposte

Member
Sep 21, 2010
27,718
0
640
videogames?
twitter.com
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.

I think you are missing my point. Let me simplify it like this: What do you think the working class populations that flipped red feel about a Democrat proposing this and its implications for them? Since it's not a matter of actually implementing this, as it won't happen (especially right now), I'd say that matters more. It's moving away from the strategy of flipping those states and people back for one that can't actually happen.
 

theCalamity

Member
Mar 27, 2016
1,143
1
265
This doesn't really matter to the arguments against the Electoral College.

It does matter if he thinks we're only mad because our side lost.

Again, if this situation were flipped, I would still be arguing for the end of the EC. People have been arguing for the end for decades now.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
It does matter if he thinks we're only mad because our side lost.

Again, if this situation were flipped, I would still be arguing for the end of the EC. People have been arguing for the end for decades now.

Yeah and I think Democrats who have stood for it because it has until recently carried a perceived inherent advantage, were missing the forest for the trees.

With the civics IQ of this country so low, a over emphasis is put on presidential elections, especially from the left. The electoral college has a two prong problem it presents itself for the left, all stemming from the same issue imo: turnout.

A popular vote has the benefit of negating that feeling amongst many on the left, especially red states, that their vote doesn't matter really. Just flipping that switch would help in turnout, not just in presidential elections, but down ballot as well. Since if most are going to vote the Democrat, they will likely do likewise down ballot and take a left lean on ballot initiatives.

IMO, a move to a popular vote on the presidential level would have reverberating effects for the Democratic party that would strengthen their foundation and help it grow roots in areas it has lost ground in.......Then we just have to figure out how to get them out in mid-terms.

And honestly, maybe Trump is onto something with his pep rallies throughout his term. Something Bernie also made mention of. Trump wants it for the high but as a tool to keep engagement and motivation going, it has logic to it.
 

j_k_redtail

Member
Dec 28, 2008
2,935
21
905
Why not require the winning candidate to win both (1) a plurality of the popular vote and (2) a majority of the electoral vote? Otherwise, throw it to the incoming House.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Apr 17, 2007
29,342
2
0
Why not require the winning candidate to win both (1) a plurality of the popular vote and (2) a majority of the electoral vote? Otherwise, throw it to the incoming House.

That doesn't fix any of the problems with the Electoral College.
 

Toxi

Banned
May 29, 2013
41,541
1
0
Why not require the winning candidate to win both (1) a plurality of the popular vote and (2) a majority of the electoral vote? Otherwise, throw it to the incoming House.
That has all the problems of relying on the popular vote with none of the benefits. It also sends more elections to the House of Representatives to decide, which will seriously piss people off.

Why not just have national popular vote? We already have the Senate for equalizing state representation on a national level. It also doesn't really make sense to represent individual states instead of national population for a politician who represents the entire nation and not particular states.
 
Apr 26, 2016
1,079
1
205
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.

You sound so fucking elitist and snobby it isn't funny, holy shit. Nobody should have say in this country because they don't want to live in the urban areas? Fucking awful. This election is really bringing out the worst in people. The whole point of the EC is so that MAJOR CITIES don't DECIDE for everyone. Your post is the EXACT reason why people voted Trump, they're sick of being looked down upon.

As for that bill, it can fuck off. Don't try to change the rules because you lost. Maybe look inside yourself and wonder why you lost instead of changing the rules instead of changing yourself.
 

PHOENIXZERO

Member
Jan 7, 2007
14,193
0
1,150
On one hand everyone's vote would matter compared to the system now where if you're in a solid red or blue state and support the losing side. But on the other it would further incentivize candidates sticking to just visiting major population centers and avoiding everyone and everywhere else.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
On one hand everyone's vote would matter compared to the system now where if you're in a solid red or blue state and support the losing side. But on the other it would further incentivize candidates sticking to just visiting major population centers and avoiding everyone and everywhere else.
We really need to dispel with this idea that the Electoral College spreads the love to small states while a popular vote would somehow prevent it. No matter what, campaigns will make priorities. With the Electoral College, you're basically just asking that they prioritize Florida.
 

mo60

Member
Jun 2, 2013
6,142
0
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.

Um I wouldn't say that it is virtually impossible for a republican to win the popular vote. Bush in 04 proved he can win the popular vote despite the democrats advantage in urban areas in big states like CA,NY and MD and etc even though the amount the democrats won those states by in the 2004 presidential election was way less then the margiin hilary won those states by in this election.

^ 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.

The same thing that happened in the US electon this can still occur in a parliamentary system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1979

The loser of that election won the popular vote by over 4% while the winner got 22 more seats than the loser.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Mar 16, 2007
61,159
0
0
Constitutional amendments are approved in state legislatures. Democrats control 13 of those.
 

orthodoxy1095

Banned
Dec 15, 2013
25,270
0
0
twitter.com
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.
Holy shit this kind of elitism is what turns people against you.

Lots of these people can't leave their rural communities even if they want to.
 

WillyFive

Member
Sep 17, 2009
28,623
1
0
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.

If they leave, you won't have any food.
 

BlackLagoon

Member
Dec 15, 2012
2,701
0
0
The same thing that happened in the US electon this can still occur in a parliamentary system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1979

The loser of that election won the popular vote by over 4% while the winner got 22 more seats than the loser.
That's because Canada also uses first past the post voting. If one is fantasising about major shake-ups in the electoral system one probably should look to countries with proportional representation instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.