Resolution for 14th amendment, goodbye electoral college, hello clown college.

[Bitch Pudding]

As opposed to minority rule which is what you have now...

If you think the alienation we are seeing right now doesn't come from a majority of Americans having their will ignored, I don't know what to say.

Right now you have the center right and left being crushed into submission by both extremes. That's your tyranny, that's already the dystopia you are talking about.

What the US needs IMHO is more than 2 party. 4 would be a start. And remove the president direct election and make them a coalition representative (like Germany for example)

I agree. For those unfamiliar with the system: In Germany (or basically most Western countries) it's not necessarily the party with the most votes which can form a government but the parties which can form a coalition, so the have a majority in the parliament. And this coalition then determines the next head of the government in Germany. Probably a bit much to swallow for an American.

 

[HoodWinked]

This is probably pointless as people are so ingrained thier tribal beliefs but coastal cities already have tremendous power independent of elections. Their laws exert tremendous pressure on a national level despite those laws having never been voted on by people in other states. Big tech affects everyone but them being based in those states gives them far less oversight from other states. EC is really necessary to give representation on a federal level without it the tyranny of the majority is all that remains.

 

[MastaKiiLA]

No chance of passing, but one could dream. The electoral college is outdated. It gives way too much power to red states. Popular vote seems to work fine in states. Not sure why it can't work for the country. There's already the awful Senate, where red states can flex their puny muscles.

 

[Boss Mog]

Gee thanks Captain obvious, it's not like I didn't address that with my "small centers of power" so I don't even know what you're trying to say. The number of electoral votes a states gets is based on population so it's taken into account in the electoral college. Maryland which is tiny gets 10 electoral votes whereas Nebraska which is big only gets 3. The point of the electoral college is to maintain each state's sovereignty so all of its electoral votes (except in a couple of states) go to the candidate the majority of that state wants.

 

[FunkMiller]

Direct voting is more democratic, so don’t see an issue with this.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Why do you want this?

Democrats produce/import new voters at a much faster pace than Republicans.

I suspect one, maybe two elections after the abolishment of the EC most of the US between the coasts would secede from the United States. Taxation without representation doesn't go over very well with conservative America. The average Democrat voter would be fine with this since they don't think they need anything that isn't on the coast.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Relief checks?

Oh, gotta consolidate power first, got it.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Gee thanks Captain obvious, it's not like I didn't address that with my "small centers of power" so I don't even know what you're trying to say. The number of electoral votes a states gets is based on population so it's taken into account in the electoral college. Maryland which is tiny gets 10 electoral votes whereas Nebraska which is big only gets 3. The point of the electoral college is to maintain each state's sovereignty so all of its electoral votes (except in a couple of states) go to the candidate the majority of that state wants.

Election maps when they are represented that way don't show that at all. They are bad maps.
It doesn't tell you that the US is a big empty place nor does it show you that this big area represent 3 electoral vote.

It's lying by omission in a form of a map. It's disingenuous that's the point I was making.

You could use maps like this for example that give a much better idea of the situation.
I was railing against bad maps, not the electoral college.

 

[Thaedolus]

I’m not sure what the answer is to changing the electoral college for the better, but when one guy wins the popular vote by 7 million and a clear majority and the other guy can still stir up enough doubt and question the legitimacy of his win to the point of a nearly successful coup, clearly something needs to change.

I don’t think California should be the only voice in deciding who’s president, but cutting it out entirely because it’s assumed to go blue is also not right. More Californians voted for Trump than the entire population of Wisconsin. It’s foolish to think you couldn’t be talking to conservatives in blue states and get more votes out of them if all the sudden they know the winner-takes-all paradigm is gone and their vote counts again. Same with blue voters in red states. So I don’t think it’s a straight up and down red or blue issue.

I also don’t think it’s a straight rural vs urban issue. Plenty of rural states get completely ignored now because they’re sufficiently red. The only states that seem to matter are swing states, which screws rural and urban states as well as red and blue states. The end result is that the only ones that benefit from this system are going to be purple states.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Why can I vote for every other office, such as Governor, Senator, Representative, etc by popular vote but not President?

Governors are literally Presidents of what would be a Country anywhere else. Popular vote is OK there. The same "regional" differences exist in states as well as in the country as a whole.

 

[Mihos]

States have already given up too much power to the federal government. Might as well just get rid of 'states' if your going to do this.

 

[GrandHarrier]

Pretty easy to see why they want to eliminate the electoral college, how else would the blue be able to dominate the red. It was put in place specifically so small centers of power wouldn't decide everything for such a vast country.

"Small". Please repeat after me.

Land. Does. Not. Vote.

Big empty spaces full of nothing versus literally millions of people whose voices are being diminished for the crime of living near other human beings.

 

[Mihos]

Why can I vote for every other office, such as Governor, Senator, Representative, etc by popular vote but not President?

Governors are literally Presidents of what would be a Country anywhere else. Popular vote is OK there. The same "regional" differences exist in states as well as in the country as a whole.

Because the state government was to be for governing the people, the federal government was to be for governing the states.

Federal government has been overstepping it authority for so long that people forget this.

 

[Ricky_Bee]

"Small". Please repeat after me.

Land. Does. Not. Vote.

Big empty spaces full of nothing versus literally millions of people whose voices are being diminished for the crime of living near other human beings.

Dude, you are asking for lots of people to let themselves be completely disenfranchised.

I know we don’t do good faith arguments any more but... I don’t know. Be reasonable.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

"Small". Please repeat after me.

Land. Does. Not. Vote.

Big empty spaces full of nothing versus literally millions of people whose voices are being diminished for the crime of living near other human beings.

Coming from the ideology that claims to stand up for "minorities", this anti electoral college rhetoric is a parody of itself.

Founding fathers were well aware of pure democracy and wrote about why they don't want it. Democracy has existed in some form for 1000s of years.

Read the federalist papers. They are free.

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Full Text of The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name

guides.loc.gov

 

[ManofOne]

Yah, this proposal definitely isn't a consolidation of power (wink wink)

Taking life lessons from communists, I see.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Swing states change over time and without the EC the swings states wouldn’t mean shit. Most would be fly over states that no one would worry about campaigning in. The system is not perfect but it prevents a few mega cities from deciding the direction of the whole country.

Currently cities have more sway than I think they should and I hope a modern solution is found but removing the EC is not it.

The EC can exaggerate the urban vote, depending on the election. The thing you are saying is just not true and doesn't make sense if you try to actually explain it. You are just repeating the thing you hear everyone say and not questioning it.

The urban vote is only like 30% of the country. Elections are generally a fight for the suburbs. That's why Trump won in 2016 and why Biden won in 2020. You cannot win an election on the big cities alone.

Eliminating the EC means there are no flyover states. It means gains are gains wherever they happen. Yes it means swing states no longer get all the attention, but it doesn't mean cities do either. It means every vote counts.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Pretty easy to see why they want to eliminate the electoral college, how else would the blue be able to dominate the red. It was put in place specifically so small centers of power wouldn't decide everything for such a vast country.

The number of electors a state gets is based on their population, you know that, right?

The Senate gives every state an equal number of Senators, to ensure that states are given a voice even if they have smaller populations.

But the EC doesn't. Not really, anyway. It gives small states below the threshold for the minimum number of electors a slightly larger vote per person, but this is true of small urban states like Rhode Island, DC, and, Delaware just as much as rural states like Wyoming and Alaska. In practice none of these small states are ever in play or a major part of a candidate's electoral strategy.

Instead Florida and Pennsylvania get all the attention. Or whichever states happen to sit on the 50/50 line in a given year.

 

[HeresJohnny]

They are already self-destructing by trying to pass shit they know won’t pass that the country doesn’t want.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Direct voting is more democratic, so don’t see an issue with this.

Aside from it being unconstitutional, you mean.

 

[Boss Mog]

Election maps when they are represented that way don't show that at all. They are bad maps.
It doesn't tell you that the US is a big empty place nor does it show you that this big area represent 3 electoral vote.

It's lying by omission in a form of a map. It's disingenuous that's the point I was making.

You could use maps like this for example that give a much better idea of the situation.
I was railing against bad maps, not the electoral college.

It's an electoral map by precinct, it's factual, it's not lying. It's neither good nor bad, it is what it is and it shows what it shows, period. I think you're reading way too into things trying to argue with me because you don't like seeing a mostly red map. I'm neither on team red nor on team blue, I was just pointing out why the electoral college was established and why it's important. Also, in most elections the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the electoral vote, so it's not really a way to "cheat" like some think. The only way getting rid of the electoral college would make sense is it the states gave up their sovereignty and there would no longer be state governments and the federal government would be the only government but since there's two governments the electoral college makes sense so that both are taken into account.

 

[Boss Mog]

The number of electors a state gets is based on their population, you know that, right?

Yes, I said as much in my next post if you bothered to read the thread rather then getting triggered by a map.

 

[Ricky_Bee]

so it's not really a way to "cheat" like some think..

If the people proposing... whatever it is we are talking about... didn’t feel it was a way to cheat they would be proposing it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The founding fathers weren't swooning over "democracy". To a large degree, they already had it and understood it. "No taxation without representation" wasn't a novel idea, it was pretty common sense. Our colonies wanted the same democracy as those in Great Britain, or at least some version of it. When the king said no, we took "some version of it".

I think there's a reason why our literature, our songs, our pledges, etc talk about "liberty" far more than "democracy".

Democracy can also be used to squelch liberty. I reject the idea that we can just "increase the democracy!" and then happiness and freedom of all people goes up accordingly. People can be vindictive and governments can be corrupt. Groups of people can absolutely vote against the minority, which is why we have laws protecting minorities. The USA is not designed to deliver the highest amount of happiness and freedom via the government, it is designed to prevent the government from imposing itself on that process too much.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I mean this is the type of shit that we are going to get. A bunch of shit that is fire on twitter to make it look like they are doing something, but will never actually make it anywhere. But nothing that will actually upset their billionaire overlords and actually helps the poors to not be poors. They need political theater to stay relevant without Trump.

 

[FunkMiller]

Aside from it being unconstitutional, you mean.

Constitution can always be amended!

 

[HeresJohnny]

Constitution can always be amended!

Won't happen, thus won't ever be constitutional.

 

[mashoutposse]

It’s incredible that we’ve devised a system where a population this large and diverse can pick a single human being to unilaterally lead one of our 3 branches of government (and be the buck-stops-here leader of the entire military) without the country devolving into sore-loser civil war.

One reason why America’s brand of democracy works is it makes strategic concessions to political/regional minorities to keep them opted in.

If a region or voter archetype has already picked their candidate (deep red or blue), I argue that there’s little reason for those groups to continue to hear from said candidate. A candidate should be limited in their reward for campaigning further with these groups. Said another way, I think a system that forces a candidate to expand his/her base yields a candidate much more likely to be palatable to a more diverse swath of the electorate. While it’s less “fair”, it’s more sustainable and resilient.

Anyone in software who’s inherited a large system and code base knows that there’s often negative ROI in refactoring old, messy code that works. Old, messy working code has been battle-tested and often contains complexity the purpose of which isn’t instantly clear.

A direct democracy is the obvious implementation of a democracy, yet here we are with a system with some additional complexity that has also served us remarkably well. We can be reasonably sure that a straight popular vote system was considered. It would seem that some of our ways of doing things are outdated/obsolete, but I think our union is far more fragile than assumed.

 

[DrAspirino]

Getting rid of the electoral college will let cities decide who the president is. No reason to campaign in rural areas at all causing a massive divide. The electoral college is genius.

But in that regard, a vote from someone in Minessota is worth more than the vote of someone in New York.
Every democracy in the world works 1 person = 1 vote.

 

[JLB]

I support this and hope it happens. This can make populist candidates more of a viability. No more focusing on a few states. Get the vote of the people! Hopefully this can begin getting us out of this two-party system too. I know there are other parties, but none of them have the national stage like current Dems/GOP.

I'll suggest you to study the argentinian case. We have popular vote. Argentina is made of 23 states. Since there is one big (Buenos Aires) and 2~3 mid size (Cordoba, Mendoza, Santa Fe) ones, that means that the rest of the country is simply non existent for the political class. Like they dont even show up once during entire presidencies. You can imagine the economical situation of those places. And if you cant imagine it, let me show it to you:

https://static.misionesonline.news/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/uca-67fqe22m0520.jpg

 

[JLB]

Isn't that the whole point of getting rid of the EC, that each vote of every American has the same weight, rendering majorities within single states pointless?

There are consequences of course, if that ever happens. But the idea that every vote has the same weight - like in most Western countries btw - doesn't sound "undemocratic" to me.

US is, as many other western countries, not only a democracy. But a republic.

edit: Let me be more specific. If you want a real 1 on 1 democracy, then every democracy in the world would have to get rid of senate chambers, since that is giving the same votes to bigger and smaller states. Indeed, the original greek-democracy ideal is just that.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I was just pointing out why the electoral college was established and why it's important.

Sorry, but no. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

You can read all about why the EC was established in the federalist papers (I think Federalist 46, but I'm too lazy to look it up), and it says fuck all about any of this. And furthermore, it's incoherent nonsense that doesn't reflect how the EC works or why it distorts the vote.

You have confused the founding fathers for some smoothbrain Tucker Carlson take from 4 years ago. This is not what you were taught in school, this is not what the founding fathers said, fuck even Richard Nixon wanted to get rid of the EC. You've gaslighted yourself into a false memory and you're too lazy to work the thought all the way through and realize it doesn't even make sense.

 

[008]

I’ve always thought the EC should be eliminated. One vote in Kansas is worth the same as one vote in New Jersey.

Also, I think a candidate outside of the two party system could possibly win one day. And could possibly lead to new parties to win at the state level.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I’ve always thought the EC should be eliminated. One vote in Kansas is worth the same as one vote in New Jersey.

Also, I think a candidate outside of the two party system could possibly win one day.

Jesus fuck, like even the people who are against the EC are invoking the same stupid lie that Republicans use to defend it. This just isn't true. You are just as much a part of the problem here.

 

[Rikkori]

No Electoral College = California always wins.

Democrats will hold power forever. Anyone with eyes should see this.

Tbf in this example all those million of republican votes out of California count for nothing. If they could all be added to the total pool instead then it would actually be fairer.

Another point people miss is that the current politicians you see and how they campaign is modelled around an EC reality, while if that changed then you can also expect changes in who and how as it relates to the presidential election. Likely voting patterns would change too.

 

[th4tguy]

No Electoral College = California always wins.

Democrats will hold power forever. Anyone with eyes should see this.

Or it forces more moderate candidates on both sides. The current system has encouraged more and more progressive policies on both sides.

 

[JLB]

Or it forces more moderate candidates on both sides. The current system has encouraged more and more progressive policies on both sides.

I think US is heading to an in-practice single party system. Which is usual on many other western countries. They only way US could prevent that is to do a political reform similar to the one in Spain, that forces political parties to negotiate electoral alliances to form a government. As I see, US will follow one of these two paths:

1. Single Party (Democratic) with republicans and libertarians forming internal lines of power in it.
2. Splitting bipartisan system and promote the existence of multiple parties, similar to what happened on Spain when PP/PSOE became PP/PSOE/Podemos/Ciudadanos/Vox

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think US is heading to an in-practice single party system. Which is usual on many other western countries. They only way US could prevent that is to do a political reform similar to the one in Spain, that forces political parties to negotiate electoral alliances to form a government. As I see, US will follow one of these two paths:

1. Single Party (Democratic) with republicans and libertarians forming internal lines of power in it.
2. Splitting bipartisan system and promote the existence of multiple parties, similar to what happened on Spain when PP/PSOE became PP/PSOE/Podemos/Ciudadanos/Vox

We've had two primary parties since the 1850s, but even after defeating the confederacy, a one-party government didn't emerge.

List of United States presidential candidates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If there's a big-tent one party government, it won't be what the Democrats are offering, but whatever comes after it.

 

[tillbot8]

Leftists want unfettered power and tear up the very essence of what America is to get it. Short sighted sycophants will cheer with glee...until someday when the Left has ruined enough the People turn and they demand for the EC to be put back!

 

[SF Kosmo]

Leftists want unfettered power and tear up the very essence of what America is to get it. Short sighted sycophants will cheer with glee...until someday when the Left has ruined enough the People turn and they demand for the EC to be put back!

This is not a partisan issue, except in that one party is uneducated.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

Nobody's vote should count for more or less than anyone elses.

States elect the President not the People .

 

[tillbot8]

No chance of passing, but one could dream. The electoral college is outdated. It gives way too much power to red states. Popular vote seems to work fine in states. Not sure why it can't work for the country. There's already the awful Senate, where red states can flex their puny muscles.

I actually think you are the worst poster in the politics section. I was thinking about it. And yeahhhhh you have the least interesting or original takes, your posts are dipping with partisan drivell and when anyone takes you to task on your noise you either come back with silliness or scuttle away. Congrats, it's a tough field so well done on such an achievement.

 

[tillbot8]

This is not a partisan issue, except in that one party is uneducated.

He is wrong to think that. It's a constitutional republic and for good reason!

 

[SF Kosmo]

I actually think you are the worst poster in the politics section. I was thinking about it. And yeahhhhh you have the least interesting or original takes, your posts are dipping with partisan drivell and when anyone takes you to task on your noise you either come back with silliness or scuttle away. Congrats, it's a tough field so well done on such an achievement.

If it makes you feel any better, you're both equally wrong in exactly the same way. You both have the same stupid misconception about how the EC works and you both have a nakedly partisan take based on that misunderstanding.

He is wrong to think that. It's a constitutional republic and for good reason!

You're missing the larger point. He's saying this because the EC gave Obama an advantage over Romney. The EC isn't there to protect the rural or right vote, it swings back and forth totally arbitrarily. It wasn't put there for the reason you think. This talking point about it being there to protect farmers is just wrong.

 

[JLB]

We've had two primary parties since the 1850s, but even after defeating the confederacy, a one-party government didn't emerge.

List of United States presidential candidates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If there's a big-tent one party government, it won't be what the Democrats are offering, but whatever comes after it.

Bipartisan systems lasted for more than 100 years on several countries, ie: Peronism / Radicals on Argentina, PP/PSOE on Spain. They last until they blast.

"If there's a big-tent one party government, it won't be what the Democrats are offering, but whatever comes after it."
Oh, yeah, thats what I think Thats why I mentioned that if that happens, the new single democratic party will have to open the doors to republicans and independents, similar to what happened on Chile and Argentina recent political processes.

 

[Loki]

It’s incredible that we’ve devised a system where a population this large and diverse can pick a single human being to unilaterally lead one of our 3 branches of government (and be the buck-stops-here leader of the entire military) without the country devolving into sore-loser civil war.

One reason why America’s brand of democracy works is it makes strategic concessions to political/regional minorities to keep them opted in.

If a region or voter archetype has already picked their candidate (deep red or blue), I argue that there’s little reason for those groups to continue to hear from said candidate. A candidate should be limited in their reward for campaigning further with these groups. Said another way, I think a system that forces a candidate to expand his/her base yields a candidate much more likely to be palatable to a more diverse swath of the electorate. While it’s less “fair”, it’s more sustainable and resilient.

Anyone in software who’s inherited a large system and code base knows that there’s often negative ROI in refactoring old, messy code that works. Old, messy working code has been battle-tested and often contains complexity the purpose of which isn’t instantly clear.

A direct democracy is the obvious implementation of a democracy, yet here we are with a system with some additional complexity that has also served us remarkably well. We can be reasonably sure that a straight popular vote system was considered. It would seem that some of our ways of doing things are outdated/obsolete, but I think our union is far more fragile than assumed.

You’re on fire on this topic. Another great post. As you said, of course direct democracy was considered by the Founding Fathers, but it was rejected in favor of the extant system for very good reasons - reasons which anyone can read about today.

 

[shoplifter]

We should transition into a direct democracy where every single law is voted on by all of the people all of the time. The will of the people shall not be ignored.

 

[StormCell]

Isn't that the whole point of getting rid of the EC, that each vote of every American has the same weight, rendering majorities within single states pointless?

There are consequences of course, if that ever happens. But the idea that every vote has the same weight - like in most Western countries btw - doesn't sound "undemocratic" to me.

It does to me. The whole notion of a big federal body governing over hundreds of millions of people sounds very undemocratic. It's why we're a democratic republic and not a straight democracy, for one. The senate and house are just one means of ensuring every area of the country can be heard -- this isn't meant so that the Dakotas and Iowa declare laws for California but to stop the opposite from happening! The EC is the other balancing force meant to help us avoid extremist/activist politicians from gaining power. The federal government has too much say as it is, frankly. The more say we give the federal government, the less democratic we become. This republic is meant to be governed from the bottom up, but what I have witnessed in 30 years is increasing uniformity of regulations and laws across states.

The way to solve this problem isn't by ensuring that every one of 80 million big city voices are equal but by restoring the governing authority back to the cities, communities, and counties where the states are the last stop unless of something unforeseen whereby then and only then would the feds need to be involved.

 

[StormCell]

We should transition into a direct democracy where every single law is voted on by all of the people all of the time. The will of the people shall not be ignored.

LOL

We can do it with GAF polls!

And it would be completely free of corruption!

We would never have any problems anymore!

 

[tillbot8]

If it makes you feel any better, you're both equally wrong in exactly the same way. You both have the same stupid misconception about how the EC works and you both have a nakedly partisan take based on that misunderstanding.


You're missing the larger point. He's saying this because the EC gave Obama an advantage over Romney. The EC isn't there to protect the rural or right vote, it swings back and forth totally arbitrarily. It wasn't put there for the reason you think. This talking point about it being there to protect farmers is just wrong.

Sorry you don't get to tell anyone who is right or wrong about anything what is based on your interpretation, I didn't even make any direct claims in here about it either. Your rep in here is too poor to be swinging the I'm better I know all bullshit. I've seen you been called on that and put to task many times to only disappear with your tail between your legs.

So with the greatest of respects, get fucked.