Current Events > IMAGE: does this justify the Electoral College?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Rikiaz posted...

So we allow empty land to be a hugely determining factor in the elections instead? The majority of the population gets screwed over by large chucks of land with smaller populations? And nearly every election comes down to the same few swing states being the deciding factor.

I'd have to revisit which states get the amount of electorate votes. Admittedly I'm not the greatest with numbers and I have heard that some people feel certain states have more electorate votes than their population would allot for compared to other states, but I can't remember specifics or what the specific reasoning behind it is if there is a percentage difference. If there is a difference, would that mean the electorate votes aren't purely determined by population and there is another reason behind it?

---

Houston posted...

I'd have to revisit which states get the amount of electorate votes. Admittedly I'm not the greatest with numbers and I have heard that some people feel certain states have more electorate votes than their population would allot for compared to other states, but I can't remember specifics or what the specific reasoning behind it is if there is a percentage difference. If there is a difference, would that mean the electorate votes aren't purely determined by population and there is another reason behind it?

https://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes

---

Trump being president proves the electoral college didnt do its job so its time to get rid of it.

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

How much smaller is smaller? We talking 51/49 or 60/40 or what? It'd be messed up if 51% made 49% not matter

Might not be a good reason to discount votes, but it'd show a flawed system at least

First of all, any disparity between states is unconscionable. Second, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly 4 times an individual vote in California, which is fucking ludicrous.

---

no

the vast, vast majority of that blank space is literally nothing

---

Garioshi posted...

First of all, any disparity between states is unconscionable. Second, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly 4 times an individual vote in California, which is fucking ludicrous.

Yes, that is silly

---

Of course not. Land doesn't need representation, people do.

---

Houston posted...

I'd have to revisit which states get the amount of electorate votes. Admittedly I'm not the greatest with numbers and I have heard that some people feel certain states have more electorate votes than their population would allot for compared to other states, but I can't remember specifics or what the specific reasoning behind it is if there is a percentage difference. If there is a difference, would that mean the electorate votes aren't purely determined by population and there is another reason behind it?

The original reasoning was kinda hilariously at odds with out current notion of voting. Back when it was created, one of the major driving factors was that the common man was too stupid to know what was good for them, and that a President might be too good at appealing to the population, and thus command too much power.

As it is now, it's just a way for the GOP to garner voting power in spite of the will of the majority. States have their own issues that need representing, I get that; But the President, a singular entity, should represent the majority. Wouldn't you agree on that?

---

The Senate is more than enough for smaller states and communities to have their say.

---

The electoral college doesn't need to justify itself.

---

ForsakenHermit posted...

The Senate is more than enough for smaller states and communities to have their say.

The house is more than enough for larger states and communities to have their say.

now realize how bad of an argument that is.
Evening_Dragon posted...

should represent the majority. Wouldn't you agree on that?

and the picture in the op should show you that a majority isn't that easy to describe. Should 8 cities represent a majority of a country with 50 states? Again 100% the system as is needs to more accurately redistribute votes to more closely reflect their populations (removing the +2 to every state would be a first step), as well as adding in DC to vote. When you are the leader of the United States of America, it should be as close to a representative of united states, as possible.

The only way a popular vote would be better is if we eliminated primaries and removed first past the post voting for ranked voting. Since you're unlikely to get any pure majority on the first pass, so broad appeal still becomes a necessity. Otherwise for the people who say your vote "only" matters if you're in a swing state. You've not made it so no ones vote matters when the winner is decided by several million votes. Since you apparently think a state being decided by a tens of thousands make those peoples vote no matter.

---

I Like Toast posted...

The house is more than enough for larger states and communities to have their say.

now realize how bad of an argument that is.
Evening_Dragon posted...

Except the Senate has far more power.

---

ForsakenHermit posted...

Except the Senate has far more power.

both have their own unique things they are allowed to do, as well as the things they rely on both to accomplish.

---

No.

---

I Like Toast posted...

The house is more than enough for larger states and communities to have their say.

now realize how bad of an argument that is.

and the picture in the op should show you that a majority isn't that easy to describe. Should 8 cities represent a majority of a country with 50 states? Again 100% the system as is needs to more accurately redistribute votes to more closely reflect their populations (removing the +2 to every state would be a first step), as well as adding in DC to vote. When you are the leader of the United States of America, it should be as close to a representative of united states, as possible.

The only way a popular vote would be better is if we eliminated primaries and removed first past the post voting for ranked voting. Since you're unlikely to get any pure majority on the first pass, so broad appeal still becomes a necessity. Otherwise for the people who say your vote "only" matters if you're in a swing state. You've not made it so no ones vote matters when the winner is decided by several million votes. Since you apparently think a state being decided by a tens of thousands make those peoples vote no matter.

Maybe the states should be re-worked in order to better represent the citizens and their interests? We can probably cut those 50 states down to like 35 that are way better representative of the modern USA.

But I agree, a popular vote isn't a good idea on its own, but right now too much is put in emphasizing the minority than the majority so that the minority can get a controlling share too easily. There needs to be electoral reform, and a flat popular vote is dumb and not going to solve it.

Houston posted...

The way the image is displayed helps me support the EC. Apparently some states have no red at all. Who represents them?

you should look into this thing called the senate.


---

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Why should the less populated states decide every election? Because they vote red? We don't use this bullshit in elections at any other level. One person, one vote. Come what may.

Because they have their own governments, their own laws, their own schools, their own police forces, their own natural resources, their own industries, and their own economies? Hillary Clinton won 400 counties. Donald Trump won over 2,000. Which one sounds more representative of America?

Nope.

---

Annihilated posted...

Because they have their own governments, their own laws, their own schools, their own police forces, their own natural resources, their own industries, and their own economies? Hillary Clinton won 400 counties. Donald Trump won over 2,000. Which one sounds more representative of America?

The one that represents more people. Why do you think empty fields should take precedence over actual humans?

_Rinku_ posted...

The one that represents more people. Why do you think empty fields should take precedence over actual humans?

I would answer your question if I believed even a microcosm that you want to know what the answer would be. This is just willful ignorance.

Annihilated posted...

I would answer your question if I believed even a microcosm that you want to know what the answer would be. This is just willful ignorance.

My ignorance is unwillful, so give me the answer, instead.

---

If anything, the image nullifies the Electoral College.

---

Annihilated posted...

I would answer your question if I believed even a microcosm that you want to know what the answer would be. This is just willful ignorance.

I would also like to know. I can't justify a reason why vast nearly empty land should count more than people.

---

Annihilated posted...

Because they have their own governments, their own laws, their own schools, their own police forces, their own natural resources, their own industries, and their own economies? Hillary Clinton won 400 counties. Donald Trump won over 2,000. Which one sounds more representative of America?

personally I think America is defined by its people, not its local bureaucracies.
---

we are the united STATES, not united people

states get votes. all of them. more states = more votes

Fam_Fam posted...

we are the united STATES, not united people

states get votes. all of them. more states = more votes

That's what the Senate is for. States don't vote for the president though, people do.

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

My ignorance is unwillful, so give me the answer, instead.

I already mentioned in my posts the part about industries and resources that other states depend on. Also compartmentalizing government is inherently a good thing as failed states like California have dozens of escape options.

Annihilated posted...

I already mentioned in my posts the part about industries and resources that other states depend on. Also compartmentalizing government is inherently a good thing as failed states like California have dozens of escape options.

You did, but that does not answer the question.

Why do you think empty fields should take precedence over actual humans?

Like, the only reason industry exists is to serve people The resources in those sparsely populated lands aren't going to die; anything we really need is already subsidized, mostly by surplus money from New York.

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

You did, but that does not answer the question.

If the question was "why give precedence to land over people," it's because people depend on the land, and people who live in different land will vote for the interests of their own land rather than the country as a whole. Statehood sovereignty matters, that's why the United States was created with a limited federal government in mind. We're electing a president of states, not a president of people.

Annihilated posted...

If the question was "why give precedence to land over people," it's because people depend on the land, and people who live in different land will vote for the interests of their own land rather than the country as a whole. Statehood sovereignty matters, that's why the United States was created with a limited federal government in mind. We're electing a president of states, not a president of people.

This makes zero logical sense.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

Maybe the states should be re-worked in order to better represent the citizens and their interests? We can probably cut those 50 states down to like 35 that are way better representative of the modern USA.

Yeah, restructuring the states is another possibility. Admittedly whenever i've given it thought before it's always been about adding states, but I feel that would probably make the situation even worse in consideration to the EC which wasn't what the thought process was before. You could definitely do with uniting some of those mountain west states, possibly finding a way to split California in 3 so it was still generally 2 blue to 1 red. But texas and Flordia are a little tricker.

Rikiaz posted...

. States don't vote for the president though, people do.

except states do vote for the president as the constitution is written. Since that's the whole thing with the EC.

---

Rikiaz posted...

This makes zero logical sense.

A post by Annihilated making zero sense? Im shocked, shocked I tell you.

---

Obviously

I Like Toast posted...

except states do vote for the president as the constitution is written. Since that's the whole thing with the EC.

Why do people even cast votes then?

---

Rikiaz posted...

Why do people even cast votes then?

Because originally our forefathers didn't want EVERYONE to vote, just a select few.

---

Rikiaz posted...

Why do people even cast votes then?

to reflect what their state votes for. You know you can google the constitution if you're confused. You don't have to act like a GOP senator and not know what is in it when you're confused in the future.

---

Prestoff posted...

Because originally our forefathers didn't want EVERYONE to vote, just a select few.

just a select 3/5ths*

---

Annihilated posted...

If the question was "why give precedence to land over people," it's because people depend on the land, and people who live in different land will vote for the interests of their own land rather than the country as a whole. Statehood sovereignty matters, that's why the United States was created with a limited federal government in mind. We're electing a president of states, not a president of people.

You're saying statehood sovereignty matters, but do you understand why it matters? Statehood sovereignty exists for the people. Like, none of what you said covers why less people should get precedence over more people.

Why else do you think statehood sovereignty exists if not for people?

---

The image doesn't mean anything to me, I don't even know if it means what you said it means.

The electoral college is anti-democratic. We should get rid of it.

---

Yes.

As much as people complain, having an election decided almost entirely by major cities incentiveses candidates to ignore the rest of the country.

Collat posted...

Yes.

As much as people complain, having an election decided almost entirely by major cities incentiveses candidates to ignore the rest of the country.

How does the electoral college help with that? They ignore most of the country to focus on swing states.

---

Corn fields dont need to vote

land more important than people

---

Houston posted...

I do take comfort in knowing that even if you're a Democrat in a red city or a Republican in a blue city, your vote still counts towards the state's

Okay...

Houston posted...

If it were 1 person 1 vote, the higher populations in select areas would determine it and I feel it just doesn't give everyone a representation.

You lost me.

And this is my problem with EC supporters. Whats a benefit for EC is suddenly not one for popular vote.

I mostly vote democrat in a Republican state. My vote ONLY matters in a popular vote. I live in one state, cool. But the policies and influences of a president extends to the country. I dont particularly care to vote for my state, nor is that my intention when voting.

I vote to vote with the US. Not to vote with Indiana.

---

Annihilated posted...

I would answer your question if I believed even a microcosm that you want to know what the answer would be. This is just willful ignorance.

Nah, you just don't have a justification that can stand up to even an elementary level of scrutiny. What do I know though? I've just voted consistently for a decade and only had my vote "matter" once(!) because of where I live. It's not like the Electoral College has actively disenfranchised and suppressed the votes of people like me. Except, it has, time and time again.

Abolish the Electoral College.

It's really weird how people are so keen on wanting democracy and at the same time obsessed with trying to live up to what a bunch of dead colonial settlers envisioned 250 years ago

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

You're saying statehood sovereignty matters, but do you understand why it matters? Statehood sovereignty exists for the people. Like, none of what you said covers why less people should get precedence over more people.

Why else do you think statehood sovereignty exists if not for people?

Statehood sovereignty exists so that people can be free. It's like a country you can move to freely and still speak the same language, use the same currency, and have the same constitutional protections. And I already told you, the president's authority is over states, not over people. Also consider the fact that presidents are paying more attention to little "forgotten" states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota instead of just the states with the 15 largest cities every election.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/18/trump-messages-resonate-wisconsin-rally-us-elections-2020
https://www.startribune.com/trump-biden-both-headed-to-minnesota-for-friday-rallies/572911991/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/10/05/biden-makes-6m-bet-on-texas-ending-drought-for-democrats-whove-written-off-state-for-decades/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-blue-wall/index.html

You know for a media that hates the electoral college, they sure do love to constantly remind us why we have it.

Annihilated posted...

Also consider the fact that presidents are paying more attention to little "forgotten" states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota instead of just the states with the 15 largest cities every election.

Detroit and Minneapolis are both among the 15 largest metro areas
---

Rikiaz posted...

That's what the Senate is for. States don't vote for the president though, people do.

no, the electoral college, representing the states, vote for president.

Remember: the method laid out in the constitution for presidential elections had to be overhauled the first time there was a competitive election. It was a total dumbass system made by dumbasses, and only via the 12th, 15th, and 19th amendments have we created a slightly less dumbass system. The system intended by the founders was dogshit.
---