Politics Would abolishing the electoral college actually stimulate voting?

[Natebishop3]

I was thinking about this... in the past I was in opposed to abolishing the EC because it felt like it marginalized the smaller states, which was the entire point of the EC in the first place. To prevent smaller states from becoming irrelevant. But at this point it seems like a much bigger issue is states that are completely blue or completely red.

Why vote at all if you know your vote means nothing? If you know that your state is going to go one way or the other, why even show up? I know for a fact that Oregon will go Biden. Not that I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not even a little concerned that this state will vote for the GOP candidate.

I'm sure there are people who live in red states that feel similarly apathetic about the process. So I wonder if we would actually see a larger turnout if people really thought their votes mattered? If at the end of the day it was about the popular vote and only the popular vote, how would that change how candidates approached campaigning?

It would be an interesting change in American politics. I also wonder if it would be the first step towards eliminating parties. Why would you need parties if it was only about who was the most popular candidate?

 

[barfo]

My answer is yes, of course. The idea that states should matter at all is weird. It's a national position. We don't elect the governor by giving each county a certain number of all-or-nothing votes. No other election in the US works (or rather, fails to work) in the way the presidential election does.

There's no reason why jonnyboy's vote should count for more than ours, just because he lives out in the back of nowhere.


barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Sure? Maybe?

But it is the wrong focus if you want to get more people to vote.

We need a national initiative.

We need national ballot measures.

It's the same shit over and over and over in DC. We as citizens need to vote on some of this stuff and put an end to it.

Let's vote on abortion.

Let's vote on the marijuanas.

Let's vote some of this shit that we continue to argue over but it never seems to get fixed.

Can't add pork to a ballot measure.

Can't have lobbyists doing secret payoffs with ballot measures.

 

[julius]

Could you imagine the shit show that would commence if state politicians were voted under a similar makeup?

Lake county doesn't need a "proportional" vote that is actually disportional.

It's a popularity vote (as in the more votes wins). Not my problem no one lives in Lake County

 

[SlyPokerDog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

 

[Natebishop3]

The idea that states should matter at all is weird.

That's because you and other people forget that we're a collection of states and we take for granted that all the states accept that they're part of the Union. But it wasn't always that way and a lot of these states wouldn't have joined the union if they didn't have assurances that they wouldn't be irrelevant. If the US was more like the EU, and there was a President of the EU, do you think France or Germany would stay in the EU if their votes meant nothing? State pride doesn't mean much anymore, but it was a much stronger issue a couple hundred years ago. People considered themselves Virginians first and Americans second.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I was thinking about this... in the past I was in opposed to abolishing the EC because it felt like it marginalized the smaller states, which was the entire point of the EC in the first place. To prevent smaller states from becoming irrelevant. But at this point it seems like a much bigger issue is states that are completely blue or completely red.

Why vote at all if you know your vote means nothing? If you know that your state is going to go one way or the other, why even show up? I know for a fact that Oregon will go Biden. Not that I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not even a little concerned that this state will vote for the GOP candidate.

I'm sure there are people who live in red states that feel similarly apathetic about the process. So I wonder if we would actually see a larger turnout if people really thought their votes mattered? If at the end of the day it was about the popular vote and only the popular vote, how would that change how candidates approached campaigning?

It would be an interesting change in American politics. I also wonder if it would be the first step towards eliminating parties. Why would you need parties if it was only about who was the most popular candidate?

If a voter's largest concern when voting is whether or not their vote for president "counts", then they're wasting their "right". Our votes impact, state, county, city, and neighborhood issues much more greatly than the presidency. I honestly wish people who are so apathetic that they'll only vote in a presidential election, and only if they think their vote "counts", would just choose to stay out of it and leave the decisions to the people who actually care.

 

[Natebishop3]

If a voter's largest concern when voting is whether or not their vote for president "counts", then they're wasting their "right". Our votes impact, state, county, city, and neighborhood issues much more greatly than the presidency. I honestly wish people who are so apathetic that they'll only vote in a presidential election, and only if they think their vote "counts", would just choose to stay out of it and leave the decisions to the people who actually care.

But that's a separate conversation entirely. I'm talking about the electoral college and the vote for President.

I would rather people stay out of local politics entirely if they're not going to actually do the leg work and read up about the various initiatives.

 

[RR7]

I was thinking about this... in the past I was in opposed to abolishing the EC because it felt like it marginalized the smaller states, which was the entire point of the EC in the first place. To prevent smaller states from becoming irrelevant. But at this point it seems like a much bigger issue is states that are completely blue or completely red.

Why vote at all if you know your vote means nothing? If you know that your state is going to go one way or the other, why even show up? I know for a fact that Oregon will go Biden. Not that I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not even a little concerned that this state will vote for the GOP candidate.

I'm sure there are people who live in red states that feel similarly apathetic about the process. So I wonder if we would actually see a larger turnout if people really thought their votes mattered? If at the end of the day it was about the popular vote and only the popular vote, how would that change how candidates approached campaigning?

It would be an interesting change in American politics. I also wonder if it would be the first step towards eliminating parties. Why would you need parties if it was only about who was the most popular candidate?

It seems like it probably would, but it's so difficult to show any sort of proof. Oregon turnout is often high, and we're always blue. BUT, we have mail in voting, so we're an outlier. Different access to voting, what local elections might be happening the same year, etc. make it difficult to point to any past stats to think it would, but seems likely.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But that's a separate conversation entirely. I'm talking about the electoral college and the vote for President.

I would rather people stay out of local politics entirely if they're not going to actually do the leg work and read up about the various initiatives.

My point is that when one votes for president, one votes for everything else as well. If eliminating the EC increases voter turnout because people suddenly think their presidential vote matters more, I don't want voter turnout increased by those people.

 

[illmatic99]

I have way more problems with gerrymandering than I do the electoral college. People don't realize how much power Congress has and generally dismiss it. The voter turnouts in midterm elections is usually appalling, and has massive implications towards the decisions these bodies make, and the rules they help enact..

And don't even get me started on every state having 2 senators. A senator from Alabama or Wyoming should not have as much say in massive decisions (like impeachment trials or confirming lifetime justices to the Supreme court) as a senator in California or New York or Texas. The increased members in the HOUSE still doesn't take into account all the responsibilities of a senate.

 

[andalusian]

The problem with the EC is that it is basically double-dipping. We already have the extra consideration for the states with senate vs. congress.

 

[barfo]

That's because you and other people forget that we're a collection of states

Can't speak for others, but I haven't forgotten that.

and we take for granted that all the states accept that they're part of the Union. But it wasn't always that way and a lot of these states wouldn't have joined the union if they didn't have assurances that they wouldn't be irrelevant. If the US was more like the EU, and there was a President of the EU, do you think France or Germany would stay in the EU if their votes meant nothing? State pride doesn't mean much anymore, but it was a much stronger issue a couple hundred years ago. People considered themselves Virginians first and Americans second.

It's not a couple hundred years ago anymore.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Can't speak for others, but I haven't forgotten that.



It's not a couple hundred years ago anymore.

barfo

You said the idea that states should matter at all is weird, and I'm just saying it's an old idea. It made sense when it was created because it was necessary to get states to buy in.

 

[Natebishop3]

My point is that when one votes for president, one votes for everything else as well. If eliminating the EC increases voter turnout because people suddenly think their presidential vote matters more, I don't want voter turnout increased by those people.

Do you think the people who vote now are any better? How much time do you think the average voter spends on doing research on issues?

 

[Natebishop3]

At the time, the EC was probably a good compromise to appease smaller states. But as we've become more mobile and less dependent on local economies and jurisprudence, the EC has become terribly antiquated. The imbalance of voting influences based on nothing more than geographical difference is absurd. And I reject the argument that we can't trust the populace to make informed decisions of electing the President. I can think and say someone's opinions and ideas are stupid, but I sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to stifle them.

Honestly the whole system is proving to be extremely antiquated.

Two party politics has made our checks and balances completely irrelevant. And I'll point out that when the founders designed this system, we didn't have party politics such as this. There were federalists and anti-federalists but not the steaming pile of shit that we have currently.

 

[julius]

Honestly the whole system is proving to be extremely antiquated.

Two party politics has made our checks and balances completely irrelevant. And I'll point out that when the founders designed this system, we didn't have party politics such as this. There were federalists and anti-federalists but not the steaming pile of shit that we have currently.

As much as I agree with that point, it's funny to hear it being used in a positive manner here, and then people dismiss it when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

 

[Natebishop3]

As much as I agree with that point, it's funny to hear it being used in a positive manner here, and then people dismiss it when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment was meant to be the ultimate check and balance. The founders understood tyrannical governments. Whether you agree that an armed populace presents enough of a threat to prevent another Nazi Germany, that's another conversation in and of itself, but the amendment exists to be the final check and balance. To at least give us a fighting chance. An unarmed populace is helpless to defend themselves, much like what happened in Germany.

There was some factors that they couldn't possibly have foreseen when they designed this country. They couldn't have imagined the super international corporations that have no allegiance to any nation. They couldn't have imagined the internet. The rapid spread of information and misinformation. Social media is something that has had a massive impact on politics in America. I'm sure they had experience with political parties, but not on the level that we have now.

 

[e_blazer]

The EC and the idea of two legislative bodies, the House with representation based on population and the Senate with two senators per state, are the glue that allowed the United States to form out of the individual colonies. Without those things there never would have been a union. IMO, they are also the glue that keeps us from flying apart today. The notion that popular vote alone should select the president would give control of the Executive Branch to a small number of populous coastal states. We see the results of that modeled in Oregon and California where voters in the big cities control state politics and all the power that goes with that, and people in rural areas feel disenfranchised. There are continuous movements going on for rural counties to secede or be joined with neighboring states. That same thing would happen on a national scale if the South and Midwest felt they had no voice. There would have bee moves to fragment, or possibly another civil war, over the civil rights movement. Other issues that impact rural areas would be ignored and would cause constant friction.

The problem, IMO, is not the structure of our constitution, but rather the rise of political parties in general and the 2 party mess we have now. That’s the real cancer eating at our country. The founders never envisioned political parties. Only when people get locked into political tribalism does the current system look unfair.

 

[calvin natt]

Yes

 

[HailBlazers]

You make it sound as though these "populous coastal states" aren't comprised of individuals that will be voting for their own self-interests. Where people choose to live should not have any impact on how much of an influence their votes have. If the majority choose to live in densely populated cities/states and are also able to provide for the majority of the country economically, why shouldn't they also have control of the Executive Branch?

This mindset is exactly why we need the electoral college lol.

 

[barfo]

The notion that popular vote alone should select the president would give control of the Executive Branch to a small number of populous coastal states.

No. It would give control to the people. Each person's vote would count the same no matter where they lived. The states wouldn't have a goddamn thing to do with it anymore.

We see the results of that modeled in Oregon and California where voters in the big cities control state politics and all the power that goes with that, and people in rural areas feel disenfranchised.

Excuse me while I utterly fail to care about their deep-seated feelings that their votes should count more than mine.

One could easily construct an argument on the same grounds that ANY group should get extra representation so they don't "feel disenfranchised".

There is a historical reason why rural areas have extra power. There is no reason to continue that forever just because it made sense in the 1700s. Times have changed.

Minority rule isn't a recipe for long-term stability.

Only when people get locked into political tribalism does the current system look unfair.

I strongly disagree with you on that.

Mt Tabor at dawn?

barfo

 

[HailBlazers]

Rule? No, balance. As soon as the cities start producing food and natural resources get back to me.

 

[e_blazer]

No. It would give control to the people. Each person's vote would count the same no matter where they lived. The states wouldn't have a goddamn thing to do with it anymore.



Excuse me while I utterly fail to care about their deep-seated feelings that their votes should count more than mine.

One could easily construct an argument on the same grounds that ANY group should get extra representation so they don't "feel disenfranchised".

There is a historical reason why rural areas have extra power. There is no reason to continue that forever just because it made sense in the 1700s. Times have changed.

Minority rule isn't a recipe for long-term stability.



I strongly disagree with you on that.

Mt Tabor at dawn?

barfo

Nah. I’ll just ignore you as usual.

Democrats seem to have a deep-seated feelings on this topic. I suspect it’s because they want to have a monopoly on the presidency. There are two paths towards that end: amend the constitution or get a broad enough base in enough states to win the EC on a regular basis. The US is not a pure democracy by intent. It’s going to take a lot more than continuous whining about it in order to change it.

Actually, there is that third option where states sign on to give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Oily, but a possible avenue.

Edit: BTW, the EC loss by Hillary’s campaign had the effect the founders intended. This time Biden’s actually spending time in the Midwest and paying attention to the needs of the people in that area. If Hills could have been bothered to do so, she’d be president.

 

[barfo]

Rule? No, balance. As soon as the cities start producing food and natural resources get back to me.

Could you elaborate on why food and natural resource production should mean greater voting power? I mean, why not greater voting power for nurses or firefighters? Or factory workers or uber drivers or ???

barfo

 

[HailBlazers]

Could you elaborate on why food and natural resource production should mean greater voting power? I mean, why not greater voting power for nurses or firefighters? Or factory workers or uber drivers or ???

barfo

Sure. What time do you want to meet at Tabor tomorrow (dawn is too early for me)?

 

[BlazerWookee]

My answer is yes, of course. The idea that states should matter at all is weird. It's a national position. We don't elect the governor by giving each county a certain number of all-or-nothing votes. No other election in the US works (or rather, fails to work) in the way the presidential election does.

There's no reason why jonnyboy's vote should count for more than ours, just because he lives out in the back of nowhere.


barfo

It's United STATES of America.

Just sayin'.

 

[BlazerWookee]

The EC and the idea of two legislative bodies, the House with representation based on population and the Senate with two senators per state, are the glue that allowed the United States to form out of the individual colonies. Without those things there never would have been a union. IMO, they are also the glue that keeps us from flying apart today. The notion that popular vote alone should select the president would give control of the Executive Branch to a small number of populous coastal states. We see the results of that modeled in Oregon and California where voters in the big cities control state politics and all the power that goes with that, and people in rural areas feel disenfranchised. There are continuous movements going on for rural counties to secede or be joined with neighboring states. That same thing would happen on a national scale if the South and Midwest felt they had no voice. There would have bee moves to fragment, or possibly another civil war, over the civil rights movement. Other issues that impact rural areas would be ignored and would cause constant friction.

The problem, IMO, is not the structure of our constitution, but rather the rise of political parties in general and the 2 party mess we have now. That’s the real cancer eating at our country. The founders never envisioned political parties. Only when people get locked into political tribalism does the current system look unfair.

Booyah.

 

[Lanny]

I was thinking about this... in the past I was in opposed to abolishing the EC because it felt like it marginalized the smaller states, which was the entire point of the EC in the first place. To prevent smaller states from becoming irrelevant. But at this point it seems like a much bigger issue is states that are completely blue or completely red.

Why vote at all if you know your vote means nothing? If you know that your state is going to go one way or the other, why even show up? I know for a fact that Oregon will go Biden. Not that I'm voting for Trump, but I'm not even a little concerned that this state will vote for the GOP candidate.

I'm sure there are people who live in red states that feel similarly apathetic about the process. So I wonder if we would actually see a larger turnout if people really thought their votes mattered? If at the end of the day it was about the popular vote and only the popular vote, how would that change how candidates approached campaigning?

It would be an interesting change in American politics. I also wonder if it would be the first step towards eliminating parties. Why would you need parties if it was only about who was the most popular candidate?

Most of the campaigning would be where most of the people were, namely the large cities.

 

[Lanny]

It's United STATES of America.

Just sayin'.

And it's one man one vote isn't it? Should a minority tell the majority what to do? I don't know what to do about the small states being marginalized but I just can't get over the fact that a President of all the people ought to be determined by all the people.