• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Opinion Warren: "I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College"

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,550
34,669
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com

On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren reiterated her view that the Electoral College should be abolished and U.S. presidents should be elected by popular vote. “My goal is to get elected—but I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College. I want my second term to be elected by direct vote,”
In the accompanying video clip, she said, “Call me old fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win.”
Warren has a curious idea of what counts as “old fashioned,” since her position on the Electoral College puts her at odds with the decidedly old fashioned Founding Fathers, who rightly worried about what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.”

---

This is not the first time she has talked about violating the constitution in this manner.


 

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
820
437
505
amugsblog.blogspot.com
Not that I want Elizabeth Warren to be president, but I do wonder if the electoral college system needs revamping. The biggest issue with it right now is that if you vote red in a blue state--or blue in a red state--your vote is basically wasted. And the election does indeed get determined by a handful of swing states.

And worst of all, if you vote third-party in ANY state, your vote is wasted.

I think the electoral college system has its merits, but it definitely makes voting outside of party lines even more futile, when we should be encouraging the opposite.

I do think it's silly that some people want to change or keep the EC based on the results of 2016, as if the numbers would've been the exact same had the vote tallying been different. When you change the rules of the game, you change the way the game is played. It's definitely not a guarantee that Clinton would've won if they went by the popular vote, since Trump wasn't campaigning on the concept of getting the most votes but rather winning the key states.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: RainblowDash

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,552
1,835
545
The ONLY acceptable replacement to the electoral college is a popular vote in which only those who pay federal taxes can vote. Maybe even a threshold of $500.

Of course, this is not what she wants. She wants illegals to pour into California and to vote for the whole country. Sounds like a stable plan.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,435
7,238
880
How about we get rid of direct election of Senators and give the state governments their say back at the federal level, and motivate people to take part in local elections instead and do what the constitution intended?
 
Last edited:

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
609
719
365
I used to think this when I was younger.

The more elections I’ve been through and the more places I’ve traveled I have realized how diverse the world is and how diverse America is.

If you allowed direct vote 51% of California & New York would decide the policies that dictate economics and law in rural Arkansas.

That’s not a good thing.

When it comes to local elections obviously people near to the situation are best equipped to determine what’s best for their community. People half a world a way should not determine it for them.

The founding fathers knew this.

So the problem here is that the US federal government should have less power over states.

And at a federal level I have no problem giving these states a slight edge relative to their population via the electoral college and the senate.

Because if they didn’t get that edge they would have no say at all, hell they barely do now.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,033
16,311
855
Not that I want Elizabeth Warren to be president, but I do wonder if the electoral college system needs revamping. The biggest issue with it right now is that if you vote red in a blue state--or blue in a red state--your vote is basically wasted. And the election does indeed get determined by a handful of swing states.

And worst of all, if you vote third-party in ANY state, your vote is wasted.

I think the electoral college system has its merits, but it definitely makes voting outside of party lines even more futile, when we should be encouraging the opposite.

I do think it's silly that some people want to change or keep the EC based on the results of 2016, as if the numbers would've been the exact same had the vote tallying been different. When you change the rules of the game, you change the way the game is played. It's definitely not a guarantee that Clinton would've won if they went by the popular vote, since Trump wasn't campaigning on the concept of getting the most votes but rather winning the key states.
Highly recommend:

 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,033
16,311
855
The ONLY acceptable replacement to the electoral college is a popular vote in which only those who pay federal taxes can vote. Maybe even a threshold of $500.

Of course, this is not what she wants. She wants illegals to pour into California and to vote for the whole country. Sounds like a stable plan.
Service guarantees citizenship.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,130
178
600
She's being used along with Buttigieg to split the vote up. She's naive if she doesn't understand that, and she isn't winning shit. We could do a lot worse than her though.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Feb 20, 2011
27,935
298
1,030
Nebraska
www.youtube.com
I much prefer Ranked Choice to straight up Popular vote. Look, I get why the EC exists. "But what about US out here in the FARMlands where either party allows corporate farming to come in and wipe us out anyway! What about GOD country?!" Fine.

The bullshit argument against the EC is because Clinton is fucking trash and couldnt do the basic ass task of securing states that were, and still should be blue. And the liberal voter denial of that, with the actual party obfuscating that painfully obvious fact is Democrat's problem.

Bernie
Russia
EC
Two-time Obama voting "racists"
Shit candidate? "New phone, who dis?

Democrats are gonna fuckin lose this shit again, and I'm so fucking done with them.

Fuck Gerrymandering too. No politician or party should EVER be allowed to pick their voters. Ranked Choice would be better IMO.

Edit: also, anybody taking Elizabeth Warren seriously on any policy is either stupid, or forgot about the inevitable pivot to the center if she's nominated. Sanders would never. I can see that shit coming from a light year away. I can already hear the pivot from M4A to "SAVE OBAMACARE" from Liz's speech at the convention lol
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,737
9,403
890
And Trump will get rid of term limits and he will be the last president the US will ever have LOL.

I mean sure get rid of the EC, Dems don't care about elections that don't go there way anyways, so whatever Repubulican wins in the future they will be hounded from day till the end of their term with impeachment hearings anyways.

Just make all votes that aren't for Dems not count and that solves all the problems. Like in survivor when someone plays an immunity idol.
 

Vade

Member
Dec 28, 2012
1,460
73
485
Apparently the notion of inalienable liberty and each state have their vote for a leader has been thrown out. You are telling me California which has caused many of their own environmental problems and disasters ( laws and regulations against brush cleaning and now you get SUPER WILD FIRE) knows what is best for states such as Nebraska or Michigan?

Comrade Warren must be the all-knowning one to have such foresight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,550
34,669
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Apparently the notion of inalienable liberty and each state have their vote for a leader has been thrown out. You are telling me California which has caused many of their own environmental problems and disasters ( laws and regulations against brush cleaning and now you get SUPER WILD FIRE) knows what is best for states such as Nebraska or Michigan?

Comrade Warren must be the all-knowning one to have such foresight.
What's ironic about mentioning Michigan is that we were also once a powerhouse middle-class economy with an influential entertainment industry with decades of tradition. Then we were taken over by strong Democrat policies. Then Michigan suffered an economic collapse as the bottom fell out. California telling Michigan what to do would just put us back into that same situation, Detroit'ing even more of our cities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon
Jan 9, 2018
1,057
1,644
415
Purely strategic... they tear down all direct-vote politics in other cases, because it appears to let the dirty populists win (see: Brexit, numerous referenda that widely opposed gay marriage even in California, etc etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,120
1,063
425
Elizabeth Warren wants to get rid of the Electoral College??

Ok

So she wants only FOUR states to decide every election?

GOT IT

What reason would a president have to push policies that help smaller states’ problems? Every election would be focused on politicians ONLY spending tax dollars and time on Florida, New York, Texas and California to help them get elected.

The Electoral College allows every voice to be heard of all groups of people facing similar problems. It forces presidents to focus on everyone, not just the majority in big states.

Two facts;

The Electoral College won’t go away, and Elizabeth Warren can’t get any guys hard
 
Last edited:
May 17, 2018
563
346
320
Who cares what she wants to do. She ain't getting past the primary stage.
Yeah, I would even give Buttigieg a higher chance to win.
But so far I would bet on Biden, Sanders or an outsider like Yang / Gabbard.
Can't wait for March when voting starts.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,619
2,979
1,500
Oh, another treasonous moron who doesn't understand you can't "just change it" by saying it, or using an executive order.

Good luck putting together a constitutional convention, and then getting this dipshit idea passed.

"Let's fundamentally change what it is that made America the most powerful country to have ever existed" said the imbecile in the room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma
Oct 26, 2018
6,339
5,687
505
Warren in a nutshell.....

- Always speaks in a really emotional nervous way
- When on the offensive, acts tough
- When on the defensive, acts like a deer in headlights

Sounds crazy, but I think even Kamala Harris and Mr. Drink the Kool Aid Booker would be a better pick than Warren.
 

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
12,543
1,053
935
Elizabeth Warren wants to get rid of the Electoral College??

Ok

So she wants only FOUR states to decide every election?

GOT IT

What reason would a president have to push policies that help smaller states’ problems? Every election would be focused on politicians ONLY spending tax dollars and time on Florida, New York, Texas and California to help them get elected.

The Electoral College allows every voice to be heard of all groups of people facing similar problems. It forces presidents to focus on everyone, not just the majority in big states.

Two facts;

The Electoral College won’t go away, and Elizabeth Warren can’t get any guys hard
Thank Odin for this. People don't understand why it's implemented.

If it was taken away then we'd have essentially 5 or 6 cities deciding who runs the country and that is a big hell no from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eiknarf
Oct 26, 2018
6,339
5,687
505
Thank Odin for this. People don't understand why it's implemented.

If it was taken away then we'd have essentially 5 or 6 cities deciding who runs the country and that is a big hell no from me.
There's an argument for both sides.

The electoral process is supposed to help balance things out a bit. But by doing this it essentially means someone living in NY, Cali, Texas, Florida has a vote that is less meaningful than someone living in a state which has hardly anyone but the state is somehow still worth 3-6 pts. It adds up.

If voting is supposed to be about allowing people equal opportunity to decide a president, it goes counter to that when a vote is worth less the bigger the state you come from.
 
Last edited:

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,120
1,063
425
There's an argument for both sides.

The electoral process is supposed to help balance things out a bit. But by doing this it essentially means someone living in NY, Cali, Texas, Florida has a vote that is less meaningful than someone living in a state which has hardly anyone but the state is somehow still worth 3-6 pts. It adds up.

If voting is supposed to be about allowing people equal opportunity to decide a president, it goes counter to that when a vote is worth less the bigger the state you come from.
Every vote should not be equal. 1000 people who live in urban areas have no idea the problems 100 rural people face. 100 rural people have no idea the problems 1000 urban area people face. They should stand on equal ground -and candidates should discuss all their sides so everyone knows all the issues.

Again, the Electoral College allows every voice to be heard of all groups of people facing similar problems. It forces presidents to focus on everyone, not just the majority in big states.
 
Dec 15, 2011
5,515
12,866
1,090
Feminists:

> lol get a load of those flat earthers, what a bunch of loony conspiracy theorists

Also feminists:

> everything bad in the world can be attributed to the patriarchy
I'd be prepared to fully adopt both flat-earth theory and third-wave feminism theory so long as I lived on one side of the flat-earth and third-wave feminists lived on the other.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,859
4,139
435
Twitter leftist thinks the Electoral College is dumb

The only reason they hate it is because it doesn’t favor their agenda, which is the ultra Left coasts electing presidents. Bitches like this are the same kind of bitches who complain about the rules in a board game after they agreed to play by those rules in advance and lost.

They’re sore losers, pure and simple. They want to change the rules because they have difficulty winning by the existing ones which are in place for clearly logical reasons.
 

nemiroff

Member
Feb 19, 2018
504
585
385
We ALL know that it's a horrible idea solely driven by a massive Trump derangement syndrome. What else is there to say really.
 

Yoda

Member
Jun 17, 2011
3,272
164
665
Missing the forest for the trees. First past the post voting is a far greater problem. It causes people to compromise who they want to vote for so they don't "waste" their vote someone who can't win (one of the two established parties).
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,805
3,559
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If it was taken away then we'd have essentially 5 or 6 cities deciding who runs the country and that is a big hell no from me.
This (as said by many others as well) is a shameful display of a fundamental lack of mathematical skills. Let's take the top 6 cities in the US:
That's 20.7 million people out of 327.2 million people. Now assume (everyone votes and) every single one of those 20.7 million people voted for party 1, then for party 2's candidate to win the presidency, party 2 needs to gain 163.6 million voters overall, which is 163.6/(327.2-20.7)=53.4% of the voters in the rest of the USA to win the election*. If a candidate only cared about the largst cities, he would lose, plain and simple. You also need to keep in mind that people in cities also vary in their opinions and it would be near impossible to gain all their support. Are super-pro ecological rules? Well, you should be to gain the votes of younger voters, especially in cities. But at the same time, middle-aged factory workers or car fanatics will hate you for that. Elections are not primarily a cities vs. rural areas affair, there are ideological issues at play that transcend individual advantages and individual advantages themselves do not stop at the cities - rural areas border.

To win the popular vote in a general election you need to convince voters from all over the country, because every gain in one area can easily be nullified by losses in other areas. Right now, you have safe states for either side, where neither side needs to cater to those voters all too much, because changing on district from 70:30 to 55:45 makes no difference whatsoever. If you do the same thing in a popular vote, these shifts to play a role. Campaining only in a few parts of the country would not be a viable strategy anymore.


* For reference: on the last election, counting only those who voted for Trump or Clinton, Clinton gained 51.1% of the popular vote and did not win the election
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,632
3,924
720
Yoshi Yoshi
Was "we can't count the votes" the reason electorate college was even created, or was it desire that would be president had to win votes across the country?
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,665
3,610
520
Moore Park Beach
Is a change of a constitutional rule a violation of the constitution? I am pretty sure she is talking about changing the rules, not ignoring the rules.
Lets hope they change it. The EC and how it skews the votes and gives disproportionally higher votes to rural areas is completely unique to USA in the entire free western world and must be abolished.

Lets hope they can abolish this and switch to a system similar to the german Bundestag in which the votes are treated as 100% popular vote across the entire nation.
That is how bundestag works, right. It is just a polular vote across the entire country.

I like it. The US president should be decided by popular vote. Exactly like how the german Chancellor is elected by popular vote.

/s
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,805
3,559
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Yoshi Yoshi
Was "we can't count the votes" the reason electorate college was even created, or was it desire that would be president had to win votes across the country?
I do not know, I am not an expert on US history, it's probably something the US members here will know better. Considering the US started as a union of individual states, it would not be surprising to me if it was closer to the latter than the former. You can see traces of that thinking also in the EU election processes, where nationality plays an important role in representation. If the EU happens to succeed in transitioning into an actual nation, the same discussion (with different wording, because the EU has no electoral college) may repeat a few hundred years from now in Europe as well. And there would be no issue at all to have transnational election lists and EU wide counting of the votes at all, it is protection of national interests, really.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,805
3,559
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
That is how bundestag works, right. It is just a polular vote across the entire country.
Not precisely. The shares of the parties (that achieve 5% or more) is the same as their voters share (among the parties that achieve 5% or more), but the German Bundestag is voted on with two votes, where the first one is a winner-takes-it-all district vote. This ensures, that every voting district has at least one representative in the Bundestag, the second vote is the party vote that determines the share. If one party gains more representatives through the first vote than their share of the second vote would guarantee them, then the number of seats of the Bundestag gets increased to ensure relative correctness of the distribution (note that this is a slight simplification, because some additional requirements about regional representation also apply that may lead to even more seats).

Exactly like how the german Chancellor is elected by popular vote.
The German chancellor is elected by the Bundestag and not directly elected by the people. Therefore, in principle, the chancellor can change through democratic processes without a new election (so far, this has always lead to new elections shortly thereafter, but it is no legal requirement).