StickSoldier
Member
We still have Trump as our president unfortunately, but maybe this is the way? Who knows.
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.
The issue the Dems have is that the way the EC is set up benefits the GOP strongly because the population growth is happening in cities and their suburbs.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?
You'd have those areas suddenly get flooded with people just to even that shit out.
This is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
We've waited 16 years on this. It has to go.
This is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
The typically American attitude everybody.Why even bother? There's no chance at all this will ever get passed this way.
This is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
This is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
What does this mean?
John Q Adams, Rutherford B Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison won EC but not the popular vote.Be interesting to see how many presidents would have lost if the electoral college wasn't around and it was just popular vote.
Is it just W and Trump?
Be interesting to see how many presidents would have lost if the electoral college wasn't around and it was just popular vote.
Is it just W and Trump?
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?
The typically American attitude everybody.
Why try for gun control? It will never pass.
Why try for police reform? It will never happen.
It's no wonder that orange idiot now rules you.
Americans are so fucking defeatist.
Be interesting to see how many presidents would have lost if the electoral college wasn't around and it was just popular vote.
Is it just W and Trump?
Be interesting to see how many presidents would have lost if the electoral college wasn't around and it was just popular vote.
Is it just W and Trump?
This is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
This is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
In the US you have the Electoral College leading to Trump, overriding the popular vote.
By contrast in the UK you have the popular vote leading to Brexit, overriding the constitutional representation of Parliament.
The fact of the matter is, either approach can lead to total disasters. Changing the system would have helped this time but the fact is that if the Clinton campaign had focused on 'blue wall' states the election could have swung the other way. I don't think this proposal has a chance in hell of succeeding anyway to be honest.
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.
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.
It's possible to win the electoral college with only 22% of the popular vote, if you win the right states. That alone should automatically lead any reasonable person to oppose it, but maybe also consider that Trump marks the fifth time in 57 elections that the electoral winner lost the popular vote. So, because of this system, about 9% of the time the loser of the contest wins the contest. That's crazy.
Don't forget the reason we had that referendum in the first place was because a completely unrepresentational parliamentary system. The tories have all of the power with only 30% of the vote.
Liberals won more votes than the Conservatives,I don't understand basically all of this. It ignores that in much of the free world, the "winners" who end up controlling government often receive low-ish percentages of the actual total popular vote, because the system is broken up in ways that prioritize smaller geographic regions and award based on FPTP results (see: the U.K.). Most Canadian voters last year didn't vote for the winning party.
And I'm really confused why so many continue to assert that Gore/Clinton would have won the popular vote in the absence of a EC. The entire campaign structure would have been different. In U.S. presidential elections, the national popular vote statistic is a mere curio. For some reason (usually partisan ones) it gets interpreted as biblical truth.
A good amount of people are dumb and will assume for their vote to matter would move to where ever the most winning votes came from. They'd feel that it's the only place they can go where their voice mattered.
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.
Gore v. Bush was sixteen years agoThis is so reactionary. Wait a year. Evaluate. Reflect. Consult with actual constitutional scholars. Stop knee jerking.
Can this be done through a lawsuit?
For example, a voter from CA. They can argue that it's ridiculous that their vote is worth 4x less than a voter in Wyoming.
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.
It's written in the Constitution. It can't just go through the courts, especially as the courts themselves can only interpret what the Constitution says.Can this be done through a lawsuit?
For example, a voter from CA. They can argue that it's ridiculous that their vote is worth 4x less than a voter in Wyoming.
like many other things Obama should have done,Maybe they should have done this in 2008 when they had a majority.
Yeah she's really going out ledge here.
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.