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.
-
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.
- Thread starter cryptoadam
- Start date
- 186
shoplifter
Member
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
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!
SF Kosmo
...please disperse...
- Jul 7, 2020
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 695
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:
tillbot8
Member
- Aug 4, 2020
- 1,186
- 2,830
- 385
SF Kosmo
...please disperse...
- Jul 7, 2020
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 695
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
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
- 2,228
- 2,494
- 540
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!
Yeah it's that thought experiement that makes us realize that we need a government, fucked up as it is.
desertdroog
Member
- Aug 12, 2008
- 6,692
- 13,414
- 1,400
History has already shown why Direct Democracy is a failure:
Athenian Democracy Criticism
en.wikipedia.org
Athenian Democracy Legacy
en.wikipedia.org
The Founding Fathers were prescient and brilliant. Sad that this is even being considered.
Athenian Democracy Criticism
Athenian democracy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Athenian Democracy Legacy
Athenian democracy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Founding Fathers were prescient and brilliant. Sad that this is even being considered.
Last edited:
As has been said many times, elections are the only time city folk remember anyone else exists.
shoplifter
Member
Of course, it's a terrible idea that only enables the majority to tyrannize the minority.
OrtizTwelve
Member
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.
The electoral college works fine, and has worked fine for a long time.
Magenta Mage
Banned
- Dec 1, 2020
- 94
- 117
- 335
People vote. Land doesn't.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.
This is clearly an Official NPC Talking Point. Could I enquire who distributed it to you?
(Seriously. When a bunch of people start using the exact same new phrase... where did you hear it?)
Last edited:
Magenta Mage
Banned
- Dec 1, 2020
- 94
- 117
- 335
I found it written on a scrap of paper bundled in with the stack of money George Soros sent me.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
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.
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.
DrJohnGalt
Member
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.
Magenta Mage
Banned
- Dec 1, 2020
- 94
- 117
- 335
I don't know where I first heard it but I repeat it because it's true. A good idea doesn't become any less true just because it gets repeated a lot.
This comes up in a Google search: https://www.fastcompany.com/9057248...wildly-misleading-so-this-designer-fixed-them
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
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.
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.
Magenta Mage
Banned
- Dec 1, 2020
- 94
- 117
- 335
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
Simple ideas are powerful, but governments are complex. Also powerful ideas can still be stupid ideas. Platitudes are fun.
Magenta Mage
Banned
- Dec 1, 2020
- 94
- 117
- 335
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.
SF Kosmo
...please disperse...
- Jul 7, 2020
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 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.
Or for that matter why assigning all the electors from a state based on the popular vote in that state is fine.
Last edited:
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.
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
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
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:
ExpandKong
Banned
- Jan 9, 2018
- 5,249
- 14,674
- 825
Bad idea. Not surprising to see Kosmo and the usual suspects defending it though.
SF Kosmo
...please disperse...
- Jul 7, 2020
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 695
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:
mashoutposse
Ante Up
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.
LarknThe4th
Member
- May 19, 2020
- 1,241
- 1,203
- 465
BouncyFrag
Member
- Feb 10, 2014
- 9,242
- 7,954
- 855
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
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.
Of course, this is also a great way to gerrymander and balkanize on a national scale. But hey.
DrAspirino
Member
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.
TrainedRage
Boss Blue Balls
mashoutposse
Ante Up
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.
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.
shoplifter
Member
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.
- May 30, 2004
- 27,947
- 65,249
- 2,450
The Electoral College is an important property of the checks and balances included in the Constitution. We need all of our checks and balances intact.
SF Kosmo
...please disperse...
- Jul 7, 2020
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 695
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.
shoplifter
Member
SF Kosmo
...please disperse...
- Jul 7, 2020
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 695
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
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
- 5,860
- 6,965
- 695
In all likelihood, reform will come in the form of a binding interstate compact, rather than federal fiat.
Ballthyrm
Member
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.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
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
- 592
- 1,583
- 380
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
