Poll of the Day > I've never heard a good argument for the electoral college.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Can you please stop taking any medicine or using any technology you did not develop and build yourself? You need to periodically be reminded that you don't exist in a bubble

---

likehelly posted...

yeah

definitely the first to die if something happened

I can tell you're fragile as fuck. I'll outlive you after that scummy vaccine you put in your veins.

DDirtyDastard posted...

I can tell you're fragile as fuck. I'll outlive you after that scummy vaccine you put in your veins.

no, i'm not the guy trying to convince everyone they're some hardass lmao

---

we can all rest assured that anyone posing as an internet though guy is anything but

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

I can tell you're fragile as fuck. I'll outlive you after that scummy vaccine you put in your veins.

Watch out we got a badass over here!

---

On the actual topic, the electoral college would be marginally better if states were like Nebraska and Maine but it's still kinda shit cause if the votes were determined by congressional district, you still get this shitty situation of a district going 51% D and 49% R which means the will of 49% of that district was ignored.

First past the post is also completely and totally garbage and isn't doing our democracy any favors.

I'm personally fond of New Zealand's mixed-member proportional representation system but it would never work in America with the way our elections are currently run

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

as i said before...

who grows the wheat and milks the cows then? do you want to win so badly you get to starve just to protect your smug-assed echochamber?

other people that well send from the cities

not sure why you have this weird fantasy that rural areas should hold most Americans hostage, that is so not a normal thing to think, like at all

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

I can tell you're fragile as fuck. I'll outlive you after that scummy vaccine you put in your veins.

I dunno man you kinda seem like the type to absentmindedly fall into an open manhole

---

TBH I'm starting to wonder if there should be a system not based on population OR electors but, rather, the states accomplishments.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

TBH I'm starting to wonder if there should be a system not based on population OR electors but, rather, the states accomplishments.

Goodbye, Nebraska.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

TBH I'm starting to wonder if there should be a system not based on population OR electors but, rather, the states accomplishments.

---

States shouldnt be winner take all, though it wouldnt have made a difference in the 2016 election, winner take all is dumb

---

Zareth posted...

Goodbye, Nebraska.

Well, like, what I mean is sort of like this. There's 500 votes. Each state gets 4 regardless of population, then maybe 100 extra split among the top 50% population-wise. Then of the 200 remaining they get divided up based on things like, say, how frequently the state flips with states that remain monolithic missing out. Or, like, the states that have the lowest income inequality getting additional votes. I'd have to think through what would or wouldn't be good ideas, but the concept would be to reward the states that are either actually doing something or doing their best to remain fair and punish the states that cause problems and the like.

---

That certainly sounds like an easy to understand system with absolutely no room for corruption whatsoever.

---

Zareth posted...

That certainly sounds like an easy to understand system with absolutely no room for corruption whatsoever.

Well, if the votes are made clear as well as why they're the way they are, I don't see how it could be manipulated without it being obvious. I mean, if you're claiming Iowa is getting an extra vote due to population when it's clearly NOT...

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, if the votes are made clear as well as why they're the way they are, I don't see how it could be manipulated without it being obvious. I mean, if you're claiming Iowa is getting an extra vote due to population when it's clearly NOT...

I think a more fair and simple system might be to give every American a vote and have every persons vote have the same weight as other Americans

---

Mead posted...

other people that well send from the cities

not sure why you have this weird fantasy that rural areas should hold most Americans hostage, that is so not a normal thing to think, like at all

right?

and without those cities, those farmers aren't getting paid, aren't getting new tools, or seed, or parts to repair anything that breaks down.

like his fantasy has so many holes in it it's like a fuckin door

how is farmer jim supposed to send his grain to argentina without a fuckin shipping company, whiskey

---

GanonsSpirit posted...

And I doubt I ever will.

You won't it's a broken system that is a holdover from a time where we had people in this country who counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation.

The only argument anyone can put forth in favor of the electoral college is that it denies people they don't like fair representation. We fought a revolution over lack of representation.

Gaawa_chan posted...

LegalEagle did a pretty good basic summation of and some cons (both intended and unintended) in a video for those who don't know much about the US electoral college:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYVw9lPiCHQ

I do find his point about Texas becoming more and more blue over the years eventually destroying any hope of Republicans ever winning an election again in the distant future interesting. If that pans out, it will be hilarious watching Republicans who simped for the electoral college for years suddenly start screaming about how anti-freedom it is, lol.

When Texas goes blue tomorrow, Republicans will want to get rid of it.

---

YahooPoster posted...

When Texas goes blue tomorrow, Republicans will want to get rid of it.

They won't. It's not in their nature to do something like that. Especially since the popular vote tends to swing heavily democrat. At most they might try to break-up the 'winner takes all' but that would just be the popular vote with extra steps which wouldn't help them much either.

---

If Texas goes blue you will see more voter suppression than you could possibly have imagined

I don't think theyd try and ditch the college, they're too reliant on it

---

SkynyrdRocker posted...

It's not. Why should someone's vote cost less because they live in LA or NY.

Why should someone who lives in NY/LA decide how someone in Montana lives? The two aren't comparable. The EC works just fine.

kukukupo posted...

Why should someone who lives in NY/LA decide how someone in Montana lives? The two aren't comparable. The EC works just fine.

Also, you can move to a place like Montana if you want your vote to count more. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.

---

I'm sure the two previous posters, being champions of giving a voice of representation to small areas, would strongly support the addition of DC and Puerto Rico as US sates, complete with electoral college and senate representation.

---

Clench281 posted...

I'm sure the two previous posters, being champions of giving a voice of representation to small areas, would strongly support the addition of DC and Puerto Rico as US sates, complete with electoral college and senate representation.

I have no issue with Puerto Rico. I honestly thought it would be a state by this point, but if my memory serves, they voted to not be a state. Has something hanged recently?

kukukupo posted...

Why should someone who lives in NY/LA decide how someone in Montana lives? The two aren't comparable. The EC works just fine.

Why the fuck should someone in Montana decide how hundreds of millions of people in other states live???

---

papercup posted...

Why the fuck should someone in Montana decide how hundreds of millions of people in other states live???

Would you believe they don't? Prolly not.

---

Clench281 posted...

I'm sure the two previous posters, being champions of giving a voice of representation to small areas, would strongly support the addition of DC and Puerto Rico as US sates, complete with electoral college and senate representation.

Puerto Rico basically yes (IIRC they have some issues that need sorting out first, but that's irrelevant to if I want them or not, just that I wouldn't want them until the issue is resolved). DC... No. I don't think a city should be considered it's own state. Especially since that would also raise the question of why placed like NYC and San-Fran don't count as states but DC does. It seems like a dangerously slippery slope at best.

---

Veedrock- posted...

That's not what he said.

Thats literally the argument he made.

---

kukukupo posted...

I have no issue with Puerto Rico. I honestly thought it would be a state by this point, but if my memory serves, they voted to not be a state. Has something hanged recently?

IIRC what happened is that they voted FOR a change in their status with the US with the option of being a state being one of the choices. The one that won, yes, but only one of the options. The way it got set up was that basically only 30-40% actually want state-hood which, while the largest option, was still a minority compared to people who didn't want state-hood (either through maintaining the status-quo or becoming more independent).

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Especially since that would also raise the question of why placed like NYC and San-Fran don't count as states but DC does.

Those places are already parts of states

Unbridled9 posted...

It seems like a dangerously slippery slope at best.

Even ignoring the above point, what about that is dangerous?

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Those places are already parts of states

Even ignoring the above point, what about that is dangerous?

And DC is part of Maryland.

And it's 'dangerous' because it not only raises the question of why a place like Chicago isn't it's own state, but could possibly lead to the question of what even IS a state in the first place. If you can just carve up states why not carve up California into 4 or 5 states like some of the residents want? I mean, it just happened in DC with a city becoming its own state.

It is dangerous because it would lead to a lot of potential upheaval as what constitutes a state and why we can't just break up states. At the least we'd likely see a mass-redrawing of maps.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

And DC is part of Maryland.

No

The idea of having parts of the country that are unrepresented is a far more dangerous precedent, as would giving territory to a state that it doesn't have authority over. If DC were to be combined with Maryland, why not combine multiple small Republican states into one more populous state?

You are suggesting a huge check on state rights.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

No

The idea of having parts of the country that are unrepresented is a far more dangerous precedent, as would giving territory to a state that it doesn't have authority over. If DC were to be combined with Maryland, why not combine multiple small Republican states into one more populous state?

You are suggesting a huge check on state rights.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying you shouldn't do that because it would result in a massive upheaval and basically redefine what is and isn't a state. Why the heck do you think DC isn't part of Maryland? Because it's got it's own congressional votes? That's specifically BECAUSE it's the capitol and the founding fathers didn't want Maryland politics to dominate the capitol (also why they didn't pick Philadelphia or Boston to be the capitol and elected to build a whole new city).

---

kukukupo posted...

Why should someone who lives in NY/LA decide how someone in Montana lives? The two aren't comparable.

Why should someone in Montana decide how someone in NY/LA lives? That's not an invalid point, but it goes both ways, and in fact makes even less sense this way because you can no longer justify it by saying you're making more people happy than the alternative. The electoral college does not and cannot solve that issue, it can only make it so you get a roughly 50/50 split in which way it goes so that each camp gets a "fair" turn.

What actually solves the issue is having regional needs taken care of by state and municipal governments, with the federal government focusing more on universal needs that don't vary by region (such as human rights issues).

---

Unbridled9 posted...

And DC is part of Maryland.

That's gonna be a no

---

popularity contests end up having people win just because sheep like popular people
---

OhhhJa posted...

4 years later and you guys are still pissed about Hillary lol

We're more pissed off about all the things that could have been avoided with a competent president than Hillary herself.

---

VitalGetPrank posted...

We're more pissed off about all the things that could have been avoided with a competent president than Hillary herself.

you assume hillary would be competent
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Why the heck do you think DC isn't part of Maryland? Because it's got it's own congressional votes? That's specifically BECAUSE it's the capitol and the founding fathers didn't want Maryland politics to dominate the capitol (also why they didn't pick Philadelphia or Boston to be the capitol and elected to build a whole new city).

So it's not a part of Maryland

---

adjl posted...

Why should someone in Montana decide how someone in NY/LA lives? That's not an invalid point, but it goes both ways, and in fact makes even less sense this way because you can no longer justify it by saying you're making more people happy than the alternative. The electoral college does not and cannot solve that issue, it can only make it so you get a roughly 50/50 split in which way it goes so that each camp gets a "fair" turn.

What actually solves the issue is having regional needs taken care of by state and municipal governments, with the federal government focusing more on universal needs that don't vary by region (such as human rights issues).

That is how things already happen. You literally just described the US government system.

The electoral college ensures that 2 cities don't dictate the federal government.

I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

you assume hillary would be competent

She's been competent her entire career, why would that change now.

---

kukukupo posted...

That is how things already happen. You literally just described the US government system.

The electoral college ensures that 2 cities don't dictate the federal government.

I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.

The fact that over 96% of the country doesn't live in those two cities might have something to do with the fact that they alone can't and don't control the federal government

---

kukukupo posted...

Why should someone who lives in NY/LA decide how someone in Montana lives? The two aren't comparable. The EC works just fine.

why should someone in bumfuck montana decide how everyone else should live?

why does someone in montana's vote matter more than someone else's vote?

or rather, why doesn't my vote matter because some guy in my state voted differently? why is his vote worth millions and my vote is worth nothing.

---

kukukupo posted...

That is how things already happen. You literally just described the US government system.

Huh. Well, would you look at that...

kukukupo posted...

The electoral college ensures that 2 cities don't dictate the federal government.

Why would that be an issue if the federal government isn't involved in regional matters? Should the way the country is run at a federal level not reflect the will of the majority at a federal level, given that state/municipal governments already handle matters where differences in regional needs are relevant?

---

2 cities literally don't dictate the federal government, nor could they. What the hell is this obsession with LA and NY?

---

papercup posted...

2 cities literally don't dictate the federal government, nor could they. What the hell is this obsession with LA and NY?

Those two cities determine the electorate of their entire respective states though which makes up basically 20% percent of the population of the country. So you have a select few people in these major cities that impact their entire state which impacts entire elections

OhhhJa posted...

Those two cities determine the electorate of their entire respective states though which makes up basically 20% percent of the population of the country. So you have a select few people in these major cities that impact their entire state which impacts entire elections

This. California is a giant ass state so why should LA determine what happens in, say, Myrtle Creek

---

OhhhJa posted...

Those two cities determine the electorate of their entire respective states though which makes up basically 20% percent of the population of the country. So you have a select few people in these major cities that impact their entire state which impacts entire elections

You literally just described a problem that would be resolved by getting rid of the winner take all method of allocating electoral college votes

---