Politics Electoral College

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
barfo said:
most likely at @SlyPokerSlaughterhouse
Click to expand...

Don't be so negative. I have seen @SlyPokerPig at Del Mar, surfing:

36812011800_cb67c081b5_o.jpg
 
Not a fan of the Electoral College, nor the House or Senate for that matter. When a Minority have a say over the Majority then there is a problem. Do I have a solution to solve the problem besides simply abolishing it and letting the popular vote elect the next president, nope.
 
Rhal said:
Not a fan of the Electoral College, nor the House or Senate for that matter. When a Minority have a say over the Majority then there is a problem. Do I have a solution to solve the problem besides simply abolishing it and letting the popular vote elect the next president, nope.
Click to expand...
Real talk. This is where I'm at as well.
 
theprunetang said:
Real talk. This is where I'm at as well.
Click to expand...

One possible improvement that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment would be if people in all states worked to adopt the apportioning of electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do instead of the winner take all approach the rest have. It would still be skewed from the popular vote a bit since the number of electoral votes a state gets is based on its number of congressional representatives plus one for each of its two senators, but it would be closer.
 
Also do you know what else this will lead up to? this will give you a scenario when there are more than two choices for president.

There will be Independents and eventually you're going to have a election situation where they're going to be five or six candidates and then the one who wins the popular vote from that will win the presidency.

Do it
 
Cal has 39.4 million people
LA has as many people as OR 4.1 million

Wash - 7.4 million
OR - 4.1

Give CA, back to Mexico and give Canada WA & OR. Im sure our friends in the mid-west & south would love to see it happen.
Them freaking left coasters....
 
e_blazer said:
One possible improvement that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment would be if people in all states worked to adopt the apportioning of electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do instead of the winner take all approach the rest have. It would still be skewed from the popular vote a bit since the number of electoral votes a state gets is based on its number of congressional representatives plus one for each of its two senators, but it would be closer.
Click to expand...
I like where you are with this. I would at least like to read a study about a potential change like this.
 
Natebishop3 said:
It favors Dems because urban population tends to vote Democrat and rural tends to vote Republican. Obviously this is a very general definition of urban and rural, but the most heavily dense cities tend to go left, no?
Click to expand...

Who cares? I'm still failing to see how that matters. Votes are votes you get more you win the state. Here's Texas in the 2016 election:

1045px-Texas_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.png

All the urban areas except Dallas where it was close (Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Ft worth) went blue.

Trump still carried the state.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
See, that dynamic will probably change. More republicans will come out of the woodwork because right now, they are "wasted votes" in the electoral system. Conservative think tanks will flood money into California, New York, etc to get the vote out.

Abolishing the electoral college will absolutely help the right, both in national elections and in local ones in Blue States.

People just don't know it yet.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious and delusional. :biglaugh:

Paul Weyrich, The founder of the neocons and The heritage Foundation, says this:

 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
See, that dynamic will probably change. More republicans will come out of the woodwork because right now, they are "wasted votes" in the electoral system. Conservative think tanks will flood money into California, New York, etc to get the vote out.

Abolishing the electoral college will absolutely help the right, both in national elections and in local ones in Blue States.

People just don't know it yet.
Click to expand...

EL PRESIDENTE said:
Rural communities will have a net zero impact in politics.

Those states will be useless.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind... You can't have this both ways...
 
dviss1 said:
Make up your mind... You can't have this both ways...
Click to expand...

I could give a fuck about a rural state.

Abolish the electoral college. Mind you, third party candidates and independents will gain
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
They can't get an electoral vote anywhere really. A strong independant can get a few million votes that count.
Click to expand...

It does make for interesting possibilities to take into account in planning election strategy.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
They can't get an electoral vote anywhere really. A strong independant can get a few million votes that count.

People will be more likely to vote 3rd party, because it actually counts
Click to expand...

I guess psychologically, that might be true - but it isn't clear to me. I would argue that a third party candidate is more likely to be competitive in a single state than to do well across the entire nation.

Losing by a huge margin nationally rather than on a state-by-state basis doesn't seem like it would be all that much more impressive, but I guess the final score would not be '0' as it is in the electoral college.

barfo
 
Natebishop3 said:
On the one hand, I understand why people want to do away with the electoral college, but on the other hand, the framers put it in place so as not to marginalize a less populated state.

The way people bitch about how Portland runs the entire state of Oregon would be expanded to a national level.
Click to expand...
They did it because it was the only way to get the less populous States to join the Union.
It's time to make every voter's vote equal.
 
Natebishop3 said:
It's not just about "the many" in terms of overall population. It's about the many states. It's a government that was designed to pull together and combine many different states with many different governments, wants and needs.

It's not just "arbitrary lines on a map." Do you really think the South is the same as the NW? Do you think we have the same beliefs and culture? Just because we're all Americans does not make us the same. Hell, there are parts of Oregon that do not agree with or believe the same things as Portland. There was legitimately some people that wanted to divide up Oregon and join Idaho.

The system is not marginalizing the majority. The majority gets a say in their state, and their state gets a say in our Democratic Republic. That's how our Congress and our Senate works as well. Should we just put all of our government up to mob rule? Pure Democracy?
Click to expand...
The less populous States have more pull per voter than the more populous States. This is not pulling equally, this is pulling disproportionately.
 
riverman said:
people stop voting for the dems and repubs...eventually they'll become like Sears and Pennys...used to be popular
Click to expand...
Be careful. That's how we get a Walmart president.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
I could give a fuck about a rural state.

Abolish the electoral college. Mind you, third party candidates and independents will gain
Click to expand...

Lol no they won't.

The 2 parties with the most money still will prosper.

As long as we have plurality voting, both parties will continue to dominate.
 
Hoopguru said:
It could be a Starbucks Pres.
Just not one of the Socialist, free everything, open borders, anti ice presidents
Click to expand...
This isn't the thread for this, as I don't want to turn this thread about the EC into everything else. So, I won't comment further. Haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top