• 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.

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

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
12,402
1,352
1,350
USA
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.
Yeah if the electoral college was removed voting patterns would be completely different. I don't think we will ever know what would happen, but I think it would be the opposite of what most seem to think. After a readjustment things like rural issues would become actually important. Votes in states like California would actually be up for grabs, while things that effect rural America would become mainstream as they would be 'pooled' across all states.
 

shoplifter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
6,930
1,519
1,775
ohio
Yeah if the electoral college was removed voting patterns would be completely different. I don't think we will ever know what would happen, but I think it would be the opposite of what most seem to think. After a readjustment things like rural issues would become actually important. Votes in states like California would actually be up for grabs, while things that effect rural America would become mainstream as they would be 'pooled' across all states.

We have to ask ourselves if that's a risk we are willing to take because once you do it you can't reverse course
 

e&e

Member
Nov 17, 2020
584
611
435
It's smart.

Before airplanes, how did most people enter a country? By coast...
And if most people just move to the city, what happens to all those living in the midwest or rural areas? They're forgotten.
We now have airplanes, ergo Constitution should be amended. On top of that, the transition shouldn’t be more than a month after the election!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrAspirino

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
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.
It's not my interpretation, it's a math problem. The EC slant works the same way as gerrymandering, by packing and cracking votes. But unlike congressional redistricting, it's not by design, state borders are fixed, so it's literally just arbitrary population trends.

Like we're seeing Texas trend purple in part because of California exodus, which could potentially create a really huge blue state that will make it almost impossible for Republicans to win an election, at least not without moving to the left.

The EC does not protect or favor Republicans as a rule, it just favored Donald Trump this time and you fucking retconned the constitution to try to justify it. It's a joke.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: e&e

tillbot8

Member
Aug 4, 2020
1,260
3,033
385
It's not my interpretation, it's a math problem. The EC slant works the same way as gerrymandering, by packing and cracking votes. But unlike congressional redistricting, it's not by design, state borders are fixed, so it's literally just arbitrary population trends.

Like we're seeing Texas trend purple in part because of California exodus, which could potentially create a really huge blue state that will make it almost impossible for Republicans to win an election, at least not without moving to the left.

The EC does not protect or favor Republicans as a rule, it just favored Donald Trump this time and you fucking retconned the constitution to try to justify it. It's a joke.
Well ok then
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
Yeah if the electoral college was removed voting patterns would be completely different. I don't think we will ever know what would happen, but I think it would be the opposite of what most seem to think. After a readjustment things like rural issues would become actually important. Votes in states like California would actually be up for grabs, while things that effect rural America would become mainstream as they would be 'pooled' across all states.
Currently both the urban and rural vote really get taken for granted by candidates. It lowers the quality of candidates we have on both sides.
 

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 3, 2014
8,208
335
570
Germany
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.

UK tried that and we all know how that turned out. UK is fucked beyond believe for generations to come because of a publicity stunt of a former prime minister.

Imagine there was a vote in Germany about where to dump nuclear waste. Guess who "wins"? Spoiler alert: Not the best suited region.
 

StormCell

Member
Dec 11, 2018
2,263
2,531
540
UK tried that and we all know how that turned out. UK is fucked beyond believe for generations to come because of a publicity stunt of a former prime minister.

Imagine there was a vote in Germany about where to dump nuclear waste. Guess who "wins"? Spoiler alert: Not the best suited region.

I second the choice to dump Germany's nuclear waste all over Great Britain!

All those in favor, say nay!

The nays have it! Begin dispesering the aforementioned German nuclear waste!
 
  • LOL
Reactions: LarknThe4th

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
12,402
1,352
1,350
USA
UK tried that and we all know how that turned out. UK is fucked beyond believe for generations to come because of a publicity stunt of a former prime minister.

Imagine there was a vote in Germany about where to dump nuclear waste. Guess who "wins"? Spoiler alert: Not the best suited region.
Yeah it's that thought experiement that makes us realize that we need a government, fucked up as it is.
 

Ricky_Bee

Banned
Oct 14, 2020
314
391
260
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.

As has been said many times, elections are the only time city folk remember anyone else exists.
 

OrtizTwelve

Member
Aug 11, 2020
579
1,212
515
USA
Amendments to the constitution are very, very hard to pass, and I don't see this happening.

The electoral college works fine, and has worked fine for a long time.
 

Magenta Mage

Banned
Dec 1, 2020
94
117
335
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.

People vote. Land doesn't.
 

mashoutposse

Ante Up
Jun 22, 2004
5,089
892
1,755
Scranton, PA
We are 51 meaningfully independent states - that cannot be ignored.

The EC forces candidates to stop campaigning in decided states and focus campaign efforts on undecided states. That sounds like a system doing its job.

PV does the opposite. That’s tolerable where the population is sufficiently homogenous or where they’re geographically grouped together as with states and races like governor and Senate. The larger and more diverse the electorate, the less viable popular vote is as an effective way to pick leadership while securing enough buy-in to keep things unified. Look at Oregon; you’ve got a growing movement to split off everything east of Portland into West Idaho.

Popular vote is simplistic and idealistic. Minorities lose literally by definition. This is not controversial. You have to build in formal incentives to compel candidates to widen their base.

Rural America is ~20% of the population. 20% of 538 is 108. Trump got 232 electoral votes. Without doing an analysis, my bet is that rural is over-represented, which is a good thing for unity (yes, at the expense of “fairness”). Given the strong correlation between population density and voting preferences, the consolidation of the national rural vote with PV will have direct negative implications on their ability to put forth their preferred candidates. Certainly, the math won’t be there for candidates to cater to them.

If the makeup of rural states change and populous deep blue cities start popping up within them, it can be argued that the rural vote is at greater risk of being suppressed with EC than PV. However, if that’s the case, it stands to reason that rural will have become an even smaller portion of the electorate and was on its way to suppression by the majority, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoplifter

DrJohnGalt

Member
Jul 31, 2019
501
623
400
www.twitch.tv
Hell, the state I reside in actually voted to approve something similar in November. Now Cali gets to have our electoral votes regardless of what the citizens of this state actually want.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,314
70,151
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
It's telling that on the side cheering for the removal of the EC, it's mostly one-sentence platitudes like 1 person = 1 vote. Fairness. All votes count equally. Land doesn't vote.

Then you have people explaining why the EC exists using historical examples, links, speculation, and paragraphs of explanation.

And the response is still "lol but democracy fairness one vote".

This is a cotton-candy fad cause, like Occupy Wallstreet. Meanwhile, the convention of states progresses onwards and is performing its role as a check against federal oversight. Go look that up if you actually wanna see ways to ensure fairness in federal elections. Getting rid of minority protections isn't the way to do it, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoplifter

Magenta Mage

Banned
Dec 1, 2020
94
117
335
It's telling that on the side cheering for the removal of the EC, it's mostly one-sentence platitudes like 1 person = 1 vote. Fairness. All votes count equally. Land doesn't vote.
Simple ideas are powerful. Much more powerful than "let me explain to you the obvious and logical reason why these 21 random counties across the nation are actually the most important in deciding who gets to rule for the next four years"
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,314
70,151
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Simple ideas are powerful. Much more powerful than "let me explain to you the obvious and logical reason why these 21 random counties across the nation are actually the most important in deciding who gets to rule for the next four years"
Simple ideas are powerful, but governments are complex. Also powerful ideas can still be stupid ideas. Platitudes are fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raduque

Magenta Mage

Banned
Dec 1, 2020
94
117
335
Simple ideas are powerful, but governments are complex. Also powerful ideas can still be stupid ideas. Platitudes are fun.
We could go back and forth on this all day. But it boils down to the fact that conservatives like to preach about democracy and the "will of the people" all day long until it doesn't benefit them and then suddenly we need to read a treatise on how an arcane process like the electoral college is the most fair thing ever invented, actually.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
Someone explain to me why electing the President through popular vote is tyranny but not literally every other public office.

Or for that matter why assigning all the electors from a state based on the popular vote in that state is fine.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,318
9,078
870
How's the electoral college system in Canada work? I need a reminder.

The US has passed its last constitutional amendment. The idea of even an overwhelmingly popular amendment passing in the current era of gridlock partisanship is laughable. The EC is best reformed within the existing constitutional framework, either by splitting electors proportional to the vote or by assigning them to the popular vote winner.
Splitting them within the state based on the state's vote is perfectly fine, because it does not infringe on the state's sovereignty or invalidate an in-state vote by an out of state vote. But assigning them to the popular vote winner screams end around of the constitution. That is a danger to the Union in my opinion and should be rejected out of hand unless the Union amends the constitution.
 

Ricky_Bee

Banned
Oct 14, 2020
314
391
260
We could go back and forth on this all day. But it boils down to the fact that conservatives like to preach about democracy and the "will of the people" all day long until it doesn't benefit them and then suddenly we need to read a treatise on how an arcane process like the electoral college is the most fair thing ever invented, actually.
Well do try to remember you are trying to shout down and bum rush people in to something that will be *very bad for them* with I mean, honestly you were probably fed that line by someone taking Soros money.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,314
70,151
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
We could go back and forth on this all day. But it boils down to the fact that conservatives like to preach about democracy and the "will of the people" all day long until it doesn't benefit them and then suddenly we need to read a treatise on how an arcane process like the electoral college is the most fair thing ever invented, actually.
That's what you don't seem to understand, even though it is spelled out plainly: I believe that the electoral college is a tool that preserves the will of the minority. Ascribing your own undefined "will of the people" isn't helping the situation nor is ascribing beliefs and motives to people instead of just.... you know.... refuting the reasons given for the electoral college.

As I pointed out, one side is actually discussing. The other is sneering and demanding for it to be explained to them over and over. Heck we already have a critical race theorist in the thread claiming it's a tool of white supremacy.
 

LarknThe4th

Member
May 19, 2020
1,241
1,203
465
That's what you don't seem to understand, even though it is spelled out plainly: I believe that the electoral college is a tool that preserves the will of the minority. Ascribing your own undefined "will of the people" isn't helping the situation nor is ascribing beliefs and motives to people instead of just.... you know.... refuting the reasons given for the electoral college.

As I pointed out, one side is actually discussing. The other is sneering and demanding for it to be explained to them over and over. Heck we already have a critical race theorist in the thread claiming it's a tool of white supremacy.
I hope you ain't talking about me, cause you wanted an expanded bit of conversation and I provided it, in its original form the EC was an aristotilian system that wa designed by rich white men to control the fate of America, this is indisputable because well eh..... slavery still existed then and nobody but a very select few white men could vote

I then went on to explain that the system morphed after Andrew Jackson cause a populist explosion in American politics

And since then it has been a version of that system, with changes here an there but it is not fit for purpose

Now you would have not posted a sneering little laughing emoji on my message and responded and debated with me if you hadn't had just bounced when you saw White Men and power and thought me a SJW

See that's the funny thing, you wanted context, detail and how it's all relevant to someone wanting the system either maintained as it is or who wants it gone

But you yourself went to the easy well of painting me in a certain light, your a total hypocrite cry about the lack of info and debate and then do the very same thing when someone challenges you with their own coalated facts and information

Pathetic, you literally wouldn't have even had enough time to read my full message before posted your shitty emoji response and running scared from my talking points, people like you are destroying debate on this board making it about your "team" and nothing else
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
Splitting them within the state based on the state's vote is perfectly fine, because it does not infringe on the state's sovereignty or invalidate an in-state vote by an out of state vote. But assigning them to the popular vote winner screams end around of the constitution. That is a danger to the Union in my opinion and should be rejected out of hand unless the Union amends the constitution.
To be honest, the EC has already been reformed past the cosntitution's original intent. A popular vote is no more antithetical to that than a parlimentary one.

The EC was created to specifically as a safe guard so that the elites could cancel out the vote if the public chose someone unqualified. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 (I got unlazy and looked it up) that the EC process should ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

In other words, the EC was there to make sure outsider populists like Trump never win. Now that has been changed over the year, and now faithless electors are no longer considered constitutional, and the EC has becoming something of a procedural vestige, divorced from its constitutional intent. So I don't really see how your argument tracks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KingT731

mashoutposse

Ante Up
Jun 22, 2004
5,089
892
1,755
Scranton, PA
Someone explain to me why electing the President through popular vote is tyranny but not literally every other public office.

Or for that matter why assigning all the electors from a state based on the popular vote in that state is fine.

Even states may be too big and diverse for PV.


States that don’t have the benefit of natural geographical impediments to breaking up may want to figure out how to naturally add a bit more weight to the votes of certain minority blocs to ensure that their voices are heard (despite the fact that the plain 1:1 math says they’re irrelevant). If not for gerrymandering, an Electoral College-like abstraction where congressional districts have a minimum vote count would be a good approach.

Separate from PV or whatever method a state chooses to allocate all of its EV, winner-take-all is an important incentive for candidates to either fall back from preaching to the choir or double down on convincing undecideds.
 

BouncyFrag

Member
Feb 10, 2014
9,297
8,096
855
Hell, the state I reside in actually voted to approve something similar in November. Now Cali gets to have our electoral votes regardless of what the citizens of this state actually want.
Your tax dollars will go to them as well.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,314
70,151
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Instead of getting rid of the EC, which is supposed to protect states and give a layer of abstraction, let's give states the right to freely form allliances with other states and redraw territories as they see fit. Every so many years the federal EC re-grants votes to each state based on its population, kind of like it already does now. If people in rural California see more in common with their neighbors in Nevada and Arizona, and the western citizens of Nevada and Arizona feel the same way, let them draw up a new state and secede from their old one. Not only will their individual votes "count more", but it'll be based on enterprise and free association instead of getting rid of old protections.

Of course, this is also a great way to gerrymander and balkanize on a national scale. But hey.
 

DrAspirino

Member
Nov 19, 2018
505
609
480
Chile
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.
Eehrrnm... nope. In Chile we’ve never had a single party, BUT different coalitions. Right now there are 3 coalitions, which is good because it helps moderate the discourse.

“Wanna have a chance at government? Either moderate your discourse or stay the f*ck out of the coalitions. “

In the end, I think coalitions to create government would greatly help the US to regain national unity, but that would inevitably require for the EC to disappear.
 

mashoutposse

Ante Up
Jun 22, 2004
5,089
892
1,755
Scranton, PA
Instead of getting rid of the EC, which is supposed to protect states and give a layer of abstraction, let's give states the right to freely form allliances with other states and redraw territories as they see fit. Every so many years the federal EC re-grants votes to each state based on its population, kind of like it already does now. If people in rural California see more in common with their neighbors in Nevada and Arizona, and the western citizens of Nevada and Arizona feel the same way, let them draw up a new state and secede from their old one. Not only will their individual votes "count more", but it'll be based on enterprise and free association instead of getting rid of old protections.

Of course, this is also a great way to gerrymander and balkanize on a national scale. But hey.

Popular vote in states is already causing that exact movement within many states. Bringing that to the national level instantly puts an expiry date on the “United” States. It’s not hypothetical nor hyperbolic; we’re seeing a toned-down version of it in the states.

Freezing state borders keeps the goalposts fixed and allows the EC to work and makes EC harder to game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,318
9,078
870
To be honest, the EC has already been reformed past the cosntitution's original intent. A popular vote is no more antithetical to that than a parlimentary one.

The EC was created to specifically as a safe guard so that the elites could cancel out the vote if the public chose someone unqualified. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 (I got unlazy and looked it up) that the EC process should ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

In other words, the EC was there to make sure outsider populists like Trump never win. Now that has been changed over the year, and now faithless electors are no longer considered constitutional, and the EC has becoming something of a procedural vestige, divorced from its constitutional intent. So I don't really see how your argument tracks.
I do not and will never accept an argument that the constitution was not strictly followed so let's ignore more of it. I think that argument reeks of fascism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

shoplifter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
6,930
1,519
1,775
ohio
Or for that matter why assigning all the electors from a state based on the popular vote in that state is fine.

Because the states get to decide how their electors are determined. They could flip a fucking coin or determine them by combat if they wanted, and it'd be legal.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
I do not and will never accept an argument that the constitution was not strictly followed so let's ignore more of it. I think that argument reeks of fascism.
It's not that the constitution isn't followed, it's that the laws have been changed, and while the letter of the law is still followed, the intent probably isn't.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
Because the states get to decide how their electors are determined. They could flip a fucking coin or determine them by combat if they wanted, and it'd be legal.
This is dodging the question. I am aware of what the law is and who makes them, I am saying it doesn't have to be that way and it would be better if they did it proportional to the vote.
 

shoplifter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
6,930
1,519
1,775
ohio
This is dodging the question. I am aware of what the law is and who makes them, I am saying it doesn't have to be that way and it would be better if they did it proportional to the vote.
They could but it's for each individual state to determine, not by federal fiat. That's the entire point - a state gets to choose what is best for itself, not some other entity (or you)
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
They could but it's for each individual state to determine, not by federal fiat. That's the entire point - a state gets to choose what is best for itself, not some other entity (or you)
In all likelihood, reform will come in the form of a binding interstate compact, rather than federal fiat.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,314
70,151
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
A very select minority. People who live in the countryside.
It doesn't protect other types of minorities.

It protects statehood more than the will of the people.
Racial minorities are distributed differently across different states, and even within states. Of course they're included in the minorities who are given a stronger voice by the EC, because top-down laws tend to affect minorities more acutely. Tens of millions of people are not "a very select minority, people who live in the countryside".

Statehood is a thing I think is worth protecting, so on its face that's not a bad thing. This ongoing appeal to "will of the people" isn't going anywhere.

City vs countryside, landowners vs workers, kings vs provincial lords. This is not a new back-and-forth struggle in politics. History seems to indicate that it is best to protect the interests of the minority even when it seems inconvenient to do so.
 

sackings

Member
Jul 22, 2020
614
1,628
385
if it meant no more mail ballots, ever, and all future elections across the country on a blockchain, I could see some support for it. But the Dems will never give up their ability to cheat. Seriously. All you need to do in this system is stuff the ballots in NY / Texas / California. Anyone who thinks that already isnt happening...lol