• 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.

DANGER: Supreme Court to decide in terrifying case if electors can ignore state Electoral College results and choose the candidate they want instead.

Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to resolve an issue that could tip the outcome of a very close presidential election and decide whether electors have a right to defy their state’s choice for president by casting a vote for the candidate of their choice.

The justices agreed to review a surprising decision from the U.S. 10th Circuit Court last year which held that the electors established by the Constitution “have a right to make a choice” when they vote for president.

If the ruling stands, it could further transform the creaky electoral college system and inject a new element of suspense and surprise into presidential elections.

Under the little-understood electoral college system, when Americans cast their votes for president on Election Day, they are actually choosing a slate of electors who will, in turn, cast the state’s votes in January. Since the early 1800s, it has been understood that the chosen electors will cast their votes for the candidate who won the most votes in their state, making the January tally a mere formality.

But if electors have a “constitutional right” to pick someone else, the winner of a close presidential election could be in doubt for weeks after Election Day.

Electors in most states are required to take an oath to support the winning candidate, and many states have laws stating that so-called “faithless electors” will be removed and replaced if they fail to abide by their commitment.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the 10th Circuit’s decision “takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent.” She appealed to the high court, which voted to review the case, Colorado Department of State vs. Baca. The court will also review a similar case from Washington, Chiafalo vs. Washington..

In most presidential elections, a handful of “faithless electors” seek to cast a protest vote, usually for a candidate who is not on the ballot. For the 2016 election, Micheal Baca was chosen as a Democratic elector in Colorado, but he chose to cast a vote for then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, even though Hillary Clinton won the majority of votes in Colorado. Colorado officials then removed him, discarded his vote and replaced him with an elector who cast her as directed.



Baca sued, alleging his removal violated the Constitution, which says the “electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president.” He lost before a federal judge but won a 2-1 ruling in the 10th Circuit. The majority said the use of the terms “elector, vote and ballot have a common theme,” indicating that “the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose.”

I knew about the fool Baca, who worked mostly Democrats on his case, but I didn't know he won until now.

This is a major deal because if this passes it means that the peoples vote doesn't matter and electors can choose who they want, or who they are told to vote for, at will.

In simple terms, an individual or an organization could put pressure on, or give an incentive an elector causing said elector to vote against who the people choose, For example, let's say in 2016 PA, MI, and WI had enough electors "persuaded" by the Clinton campaign to ignore the peoples vote for Trump in those states, and instead put in a ballot for Hillary Clinton. Under this law Hillary would win despite her losing in those states, and the consequence would be Hillary currently sitting in the oval office as President instead of Trump.

The fact the Supreme court accepted this case instead of turning against it is terrifying, and only makes me believe something isn't quite right. There's some bullshit going on that we don't know about and if this passes it will screw up every future election.. You can't even say both sides can use it because as we all know, the left has much greater access to finances than the GOP, and could easily "convince" several electors to choose another candidate.

This is fucking catastrophic and severely dangerous.
 

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
3,798
5,126
545
Can't wait for this to be my vote.
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
31,451
11,069
1,580
Glad that the court is taking this up. Baca should have voted for Hillary as his constituents wanted.



HURRR DURRR
 

LegendOfKage

Member
Mar 6, 2018
3,627
5,270
765
For some better understanding of the situation, I'd recommend this video:

 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: Xenon
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
For some better understanding of the situation, I'd recommend this video:

Actually makes it more complex.

You only need the paragraph in the OP to understand what it is. It's terrifying is what it is. Lack of concern about this is telling how much it's being buried.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,430
1,215
This just seems bad for both parties. Its not a Dem/Republican thing.

What is stopping Republicans from getting this elector to cast their vote for Ivanaka in 2024 so she wins the presidency.

There is life after Trump he can only run 1 more time. Is beating him worth opening pandoras box so that Republicans can use the same games to have 1 person decide who wins each state.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
If this happens then the whole election process would become a sham. No point for the election at all in fact. Just wait for January and let the "electors" decide our future.

The Supreme Court better have accepted this so that they could definitively shut it down.

If the Electoral College process is ever abolished, you will need to change the name to States of America. Eventually it will revert back to Turtle Island when California conquers the rest of the states.
 

Cato

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,405
8,476
755
The supreme court is no lo
The founding fathers included the electoral college for a reason and even explained why it was made up of fresh electors instead of a longstanding body (to protect against subversion). This will not likely pass. There is too much history on this very issue.

It will not pass.
The majority in the SC is now people that want to uphold the constitution and not people that want to reinterpret in the current climate and legislate from the bench.
I think is is 99% likely that they will rule compatible with sanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
10,512
24,663
790
The supreme court is no lo


It will not pass.
The majority in the SC is now people that want to uphold the constitution and not people that want to reinterpret in the current climate and legislate from the bench.
I think is is 99% likely that they will rule compatible with sanity.
Agreed.
This is why they want that court so badly. Luckily, it’ll be decades before they even have a shot at it, and even more if Trump gets a second term.
 

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
3,798
5,126
545
Agreed.
This is why they want that court so badly. Luckily, it’ll be decades before they even have a shot at it, and even more if Trump gets a second term.
I dunno. American life expectancy is decreasing and Kavanaugh loves beer. We might see him face down at a frat party with a shirt that says boofmaster 2020
 
H

hariseldon

Unconfirmed Member
This just seems bad for both parties. Its not a Dem/Republican thing.

What is stopping Republicans from getting this elector to cast their vote for Ivanaka in 2024 so she wins the presidency.

There is life after Trump he can only run 1 more time. Is beating him worth opening pandoras box so that Republicans can use the same games to have 1 person decide who wins each state.

That applies to all political malfeasance really and seems to be something people forget. If you do a shitty thing you open up the option of the other side doing it, unless you take the typical leftist option of pullingup the rug behind you a la Momentum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,430
1,215
That applies to all political malfeasance really and seems to be something people forget. If you do a shitty thing you open up the option of the other side doing it, unless you take the typical leftist option of pullingup the rug behind you a la Momentum.

Or send anyone who doesn't agree with them to re education camps or gulags lol.
 

Ornlu

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,853
6,236
675
I'd really not has the "October Surprise" period get a second renewal between November and January.

Wall to wall smears aimed at pressuring electors. No thanks.
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
May 4, 2005
16,488
6,069
1,875
33
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
While I agree that it would be an unfortunate decision to allow electorates to vote as they please, if they cannot, why even have the EC instead of directly appointing the person president who wins an absolute majority of EC voters? Unless there is no clear winner (in which case I am unsure who the EC will proceed), the EC is a pretty useless formality, when the voters cannot make a decision independently.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

moomoo14

Member
Dec 8, 2014
470
16
405
This seems like a weird thing to get hung up over when you look at the circumstances of it. Faithless electors have never changed the result of an election in the history of the United States. Don’t get me wrong, it seems like an outdated system to have electors vote after the people, but if the results are the same as if they weren’t doing that, who really cares?
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,786
16,984
830
That's not terrifying that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. It's been awhile since my highschool government class but I distinctly remember hearing my teacher talk about how founders put something in there regarding the electoral college and preventing the election of demagogues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StormCell
H

hariseldon

Unconfirmed Member
That's not terrifying that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. It's been awhile since my highschool government class but I distinctly remember hearing my teacher talk about how founders put something in there regarding the electoral college and preventing the election of demagogues.

Just curious, who gets to define the demagoguery of a president? I also wonder how you would feel if Hillary had won the electoral college (in theory) but been denied by a rogue voter...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

prag16

Banned
Jul 12, 2012
12,186
4,386
860
Faithless electors have been a thing for centuries. The Constitution is silent on this, and this is usually handled on a state by state basis. I wouldn't be sure SCOTUS will rule that electors "cannot be faithless".
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
Yoshi and Nobody Impregnant are gong crazy!

Leave the faithless rules tot he states, who should determine their own rules.
 

LegendOfKage

Member
Mar 6, 2018
3,627
5,270
765
While I agree that it would be an unfortunate decision to allow electorates to vote as they please, if they cannot, why even have the EC instead of directly appointing the person president who wins an absolute majority of EC voters? Unless there is no clear winner (in which case I am unsure who the EC will proceed), the EC is a pretty useless formality, when the voters cannot make a decision independently.

Watch the video that I embedded in post 6. Basically, the people who directly vote directly for the president are supposed to vote the way their state did. The EC exists as a compromise between a direct democracy and a republic. To circumvent that in a way that would ignore either the aspects of democracy or the repubic is very much against what the founding fathers intended.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Watch the video that I embedded in post 6. Basically, the people who directly vote directly for the president are supposed to vote the way their state did. The EC exists as a compromise between a direct democracy and a republic. To circumvent that in a way that would ignore either the aspects of democracy or the repubic is very much against what the founding fathers intended.
The federalist papers on the electoral college can be read in full here, but the relevant snippet:

As the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

In part, the system is meant as a buffer against bureaucratic artifices and/or the force of mobs. While it may seem quaint by today's standards, there was an explicit desire for the elector votes to be communicated by the state itself by people located within the state instead of convening to a central location or sending representatives. Any of those scenarios would open up the possibility for corruption or unexpected subversion, or even attack.

i.e. if there is a violent mob that wishes to influence/overturn the vote of the people, the mobs would have to be in each and every state at each and every electoral convention to try to overturn the decision, instead of just rioting in front of a hypothetical "Electoral College HQ" in D.C. (for instance).

Protection via distribution.
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
1,461
1,221
425
I already think it’s a shame with the Deibold scandal and all the fraud going around.

doesn’t really affect anything
 

Thaedolus

Banned
Jun 9, 2004
11,553
5,713
1,875
A winner-take-all electoral college makes no sense in the modern age IMO. When the constitution was amended to allow anyone over 18 to vote, its relevance died out. You can’t make the case that small states are being disenfranchised in a purely popular vote when you’re disenfranchising a) the people in every state that voted in the minority and/or b) the people that voted for the winner of the popular vote that lost the electoral college vote.

Smaller states already have disproportionate power in the senate. Seats in the house are divided up based on population. The president is the chief executive of the whole country, therefore one person one vote makes the most sense. The electoral college is always going to fuck someone over, just get rid of it and let the general election be by popular vote.

And no the system as it stands now isn’t at all how the framers intended it, so that line of reasoning doesn’t really hold up.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
A winner-take-all electoral college makes no sense in the modern age IMO. When the constitution was amended to allow anyone over 18 to vote, its relevance died out. You can’t make the case that small states are being disenfranchised in a purely popular vote when you’re disenfranchising a) the people in every state that voted in the minority and/or b) the people that voted for the winner of the popular vote that lost the electoral college vote.

Smaller states already have disproportionate power in the senate. Seats in the house are divided up based on population. The president is the chief executive of the whole country, therefore one person one vote makes the most sense. The electoral college is always going to fuck someone over, just get rid of it and let the general election be by popular vote.

And no the system as it stands now isn’t at all how the framers intended it, so that line of reasoning doesn’t really hold up.
First of all, the number of electors is based indirectly on the popular vote, since the number of electoral votes is based upon your state's total number of House of Reps plus your two senators. So you have your wish already, perhaps not in as extreme of a form as you desire. The popular vote influences who will be president by granting states with higher populations a higher number of elector votes.

The framers had a lot to say about the popular vote. They knew dense population centers would need to be countered by the mechanics of the system to avoid the very same problems of older democratic societies like the Greeks and Romans.

If the framers thought the danger of majority population overwhelming the rights of minorities was a concern back in the 1700s when population was a few million, imagine how much more important they'd take it when the USA's population is over 300 million.


It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Second, the framers said quite a lot about the danger of a popular vote and wrote at length about it:


it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
17,499
24,349
795
I'm all for the Popular Vote.

But oh well, if the country wants to do electoral style which is hard pressed into law books, got to man up and live with it.
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
older democratic societies like the Greeks and Romans.

Ain't nothing democratic about either of those two.

Anyway, It's very simple to understand why the EC was created, I think you're putting way too much effort into something that has been argued to death for 4 years and with plenty of free information on said subject. Those who have fallen for the propaganda and have no interest in fully considering the other, accurate, viewpoint aren't ever going to budge so this is an exercise in futility.

I recognize your attempt at engaging in discourse on this issue, but when the target is a wall then what is the point of yelling if the wall will not respond?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I recognize your attempt at engaging in discourse on this issue, but when the target is a wall then what is the point of yelling if the wall will not respond?
Simple, I believe the number of people who are misinformed and/or are willing to change their opinion on this topic greatly outnumber those who are "walls", unwilling to change their opinion. I think this is a reasonable stance since so many people are indeed misinformed on the topic, so hopefully presenting information will cause one to pause and learn something new.

Thaedolus Thaedolus can be a wall or change their mind, that's up to him. However, the nature of a forum means I am not simply attempting to engage in discourse with one person but with the forum at large. Uninvolved observers can weigh my opinion and come to their own conclusions, or can reply and offer their own insight.

The worst thing for a forum member to do would be to assume the other is just a "wall". That road leads to echo chambers and ignore lists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
Simple, I believe the number of people who are misinformed and/or are willing to change their opinion on this topic greatly outnumber those who are "walls", unwilling to change their opinion. I think this is a reasonable stance since so many people are indeed misinformed on the topic, so hopefully presenting information will cause one to pause and learn something new.

Thaedolus Thaedolus can be a wall or change their mind, that's up to him. However, the nature of a forum means I am not simply attempting to engage in discourse with one person but with the forum at large. Uninvolved observers can weigh my opinion and come to their own conclusions, or can reply and offer their own insight.

The worst thing for a forum member to do would be to assume the other is just a "wall". That road leads to echo chambers and ignore lists.

I would believe most users on this section of the forum already know about this issue and the only ones who don't are the usual suspects, but if you believe so go ahead.
 

Thaedolus

Banned
Jun 9, 2004
11,553
5,713
1,875
First of all, the number of electors is based indirectly on the popular vote, since the number of electoral votes is based upon your state's total number of House of Reps plus your two senators. So you have your wish already, perhaps not in as extreme of a form as you desire. The popular vote influences who will be president by granting states with higher populations a higher number of elector votes.

I understand the mechanisms of the current system.`

The framers had a lot to say about the popular vote. They knew dense population centers would need to be countered by the mechanics of the system to avoid the very same problems of older democratic societies like the Greeks and Romans.

I understand this as well, which is why the original electoral college system wasn't beholden to the general popular votes of each state, and the general public, or women, or black people weren't even allowed to vote in elections until the constitution was amended. That was my point about trying to make this about the intent of the framers being futile: the current system would be almost unrecognizable to them anyway. Their original intent was thrown out a long time ago.

If the framers thought the danger of majority population overwhelming the rights of minorities was a concern back in the 1700s when population was a few million, imagine how much more important they'd take it when the USA's population is over 300 million.


It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Second, the framers said quite a lot about the danger of a popular vote and wrote at length about it:


it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.

I understand the background for these matters as well, and the system as it stands now (again, my position is that it's almost nothing like what the framers put in place) is the worst of both worlds in that both major population centers and rural parts of the country are completely ignored because of the arbitrary state boundaries they happen to be in makes them irrelevant due to the current system. Yes, nobody would give a shit about Iowa if it weren't the first place to caucus in the primaries, but who's spending serious campaign in rural Utah or rural California? vast swaths of California, as much as people here like to shit on it, are inhabited by conservative farmers in rural areas, but nobody will give them attention because statewide it'll almost certainly go blue. If you live in a state which isn't "purple," nobody gives a shit because they're counting on your state's votes, all of the votes, to be in the bag. It makes zero sense. Even a less-perfect option would be to have states allocate votes proportionately like Nebraska or Maine. You don't think rural voters in California would stand to benefit from a Republican's ability to shave off some electoral votes by campaigning there vs. ignoring it completely?

Trump won partly because Clinton thought she had certain areas in the bag and took it for granted. Imagine candidates seeing every voter as being important to the total and not being able to count on anything? I don't see how there's a downside there, compared to what we have now. The system now seems to be the worst of all worlds to be honest.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I understand the mechanisms of the current system.`



I understand this as well, which is why the original electoral college system wasn't beholden to the general popular votes of each state, and the general public, or women, or black people weren't even allowed to vote in elections until the constitution was amended. That was my point about trying to make this about the intent of the framers being futile: the current system would be almost unrecognizable to them anyway. Their original intent was thrown out a long time ago.



I understand the background for these matters as well, and the system as it stands now (again, my position is that it's almost nothing like what the framers put in place) is the worst of both worlds in that both major population centers and rural parts of the country are completely ignored because of the arbitrary state boundaries they happen to be in makes them irrelevant due to the current system. Yes, nobody would give a shit about Iowa if it weren't the first place to caucus in the primaries, but who's spending serious campaign in rural Utah or rural California? vast swaths of California, as much as people here like to shit on it, are inhabited by conservative farmers in rural areas, but nobody will give them attention because statewide it'll almost certainly go blue. If you live in a state which isn't "purple," nobody gives a shit because they're counting on your state's votes, all of the votes, to be in the bag. It makes zero sense. Even a less-perfect option would be to have states allocate votes proportionately like Nebraska or Maine. You don't think rural voters in California would stand to benefit from a Republican's ability to shave off some electoral votes by campaigning there vs. ignoring it completely?

Trump won partly because Clinton thought she had certain areas in the bag and took it for granted. Imagine candidates seeing every voter as being important to the total and not being able to count on anything? I don't see how there's a downside there, compared to what we have now. The system now seems to be the worst of all worlds to be honest.
Asking "imagine seeing every voter as being important" is an empty platitude, since anyone with a shred of pragmatism knows that not every leader will be everything to every person, nor will that leader keep the personal needs of every single person in mind (sadly). Therefore, the best way to cover as much territory as possible is to provide each given citizen multiple avenues of affecting their government, not just through electing the president but also through federal, state, and local elections, each with their own checks and balances and areas of influence.

Popular vote doesn't ensure that politicians will see "every voter as being important". Quite the opposite, as you pointed out yourself in the example of Hillary Clinton.
 

Thaedolus

Banned
Jun 9, 2004
11,553
5,713
1,875
Asking "imagine seeing every voter as being important" is an empty platitude, since anyone with a shred of pragmatism knows that not every leader will be everything to every person, nor will that leader keep the personal needs of every single person in mind (sadly). Therefore, the best way to cover as much territory as possible is to provide each given citizen multiple avenues of affecting their government, not just through electing the president but also through federal, state, and local elections, each with their own checks and balances and areas of influence.

Sure, and that’s all there too. What I take issue with is that the aim of the electoral college to keep low population centers from being ignored seems to completely contrary to its effect. The only people that matter in the presidential election are those in purple/swing states. The only incentive there is to cowtow to those few states that are a toss up. That seems far from any kind of ideal system.

Popular vote doesn't ensure that politicians will see "every voter as being important". Quite the opposite, as you pointed out yourself in the example of Hillary Clinton.

It won’t ensure that they’ll see it in such a black and white way, but I think no politician would even dare take electoral votes for granted if they were divided up proportionally to the state’s vote. The negative here isn’t the way it worked out in 2016 (I mean from my perspective it sucked but Trump’s campaign was shrewd enough to recognize it was close enough in certain states to tip the scales), the negative is that anyone running for President is taking electoral college votes for granted. Again, if the stated goal is to achieve some sort of parity between densely populated areas and rural areas, the current system does nothing of the sort
 

Ornlu

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,853
6,236
675
It won’t ensure that they’ll see it in such a black and white way, but I think no politician would even dare take electoral votes for granted if they were divided up proportionally to the state’s vote. The negative here isn’t the way it worked out in 2016 (I mean from my perspective it sucked but Trump’s campaign was shrewd enough to recognize it was close enough in certain states to tip the scales), the negative is that anyone running for President is taking electoral college votes for granted. Again, if the stated goal is to achieve some sort of parity between densely populated areas and rural areas, the current system does nothing of the sort

How would a straight popular vote do anything other than have candidates spend 99% of their time campaigning in and around metro areas? Rural states would get like 1 or 2 electoral votes each and become entirely irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Sure, and that’s all there too. What I take issue with is that the aim of the electoral college to keep low population centers from being ignored seems to completely contrary to its effect. The only people that matter in the presidential election are those in purple/swing states. The only incentive there is to cowtow to those few states that are a toss up. That seems far from any kind of ideal system.
This isn't the case at all. Sounds like a talking point from CNN, not a serious argument.

This is the Blue Wall of 2012



This is the vote of 2016. Notice how some states flipped? Why shouldn't they? Several flipped states were "blue wall" states 4 years prior. Switching from blue wall to "deplorable" should've put the Democrats on watch instead of taking these votes for granted. Isn't that your concern, politicians taking votes for granted? When you are guaranteed victory due to the support of dense population centers, you tend to take votes for granted. History is pretty clear on that one.



The complaint about swing states is a complaint against your own proposal of following the popular vote / distribution of electoral votes by popular vote. Instead of swing states, imagine swing cities where the tens-of-millions packed into a dozen cities are pandered to endlessly by politicians. Rural areas would have even less power than they do now.

Remember, it isn't just about rural states but also about rural areas within states. California's rural areas often vote Republican yet never seem to win. Why? Because the dense population centers drown out the will of the outlying counties. It's not like the electoral system only works in the favor of the minority and never works in favor of the majority.

It won’t ensure that they’ll see it in such a black and white way, but I think no politician would even dare take electoral votes for granted if they were divided up proportionally to the state’s vote.
No, the framers were specific about wanting a person to succeed in a given state before they could have a shot at the presidency. If you divvy up electoral votes proportionally by the state's vote it isn't much different than a popular vote and eliminates one of the main reasons for having the electoral college in the first place.

The negative here isn’t the way it worked out in 2016 (I mean from my perspective it sucked but Trump’s campaign was shrewd enough to recognize it was close enough in certain states to tip the scales), the negative is that anyone running for President is taking electoral college votes for granted. Again, if the stated goal is to achieve some sort of parity between densely populated areas and rural areas, the current system does nothing of the sort
Why is "anyone running for president taking electoral college votes for granted"? As compared to what?

2016 is a wonderful example of how parity between densely-populated areas and rural areas was achieved by our system.

The popular vote was 62,984,828 Trump versus 65,853,514 Hillary, a difference of less than 3 million / 4% of the total. Both candidates received tens of millions of votes.

The vote distribution, however...



If we are sticking with the platitude that the president should be president of "all the country", this shows we received exactly that in 2016.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
My point is there's a difference between these two numbers:


Yeah, one has a Square and one doesn't.

Most people know about this topic, anyone else is Reset tier or a wall. It's been way too many years to think there are still people who aren't ware of the debate on this issue especially since the Media pushed it to intentionally deceive people that the EC is broken.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Yeah, one has a Square and one doesn't.

Most people know about this topic, anyone else is Reset tier or a wall. It's been way too many years to think there are still people who aren't ware of the debate on this issue especially since the Media pushed it to intentionally deceive people that the EC is broken.
I don't think this jives with the nature of the internet. The media clutched pearls about 4chan and the internet laughed. I believe in the value of patiently reiterating the truth, even when there is a chance some/many/most do not choose to listen.
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
I don't think this jives with the nature of the internet. The media clutched pearls about 4chan and the internet laughed. I believe in the value of patiently reiterating the truth, even when there is a chance some/many/most do not choose to listen.

You're giving Neogaf much more of a platform then it actually has, although it's a good platform. that is growing.
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
Not sure what you mean. I don't think I'm reaching tens of thousands. I'm not posting with the intention of reaching tens of thousands.

Did you just act like you didn't make your last post?

Bottom line is that you aren't reaching anyone, at least here, it's the same people as before, and both arguments have been presented for years, the likely hood of anyone who is ill-informed and hasn't chosen a side lurking around is .ooo% of the 0th percentile. Especially since it's impeachment distraction day so today is really a bad time.