Opinions of abolishing Electoral College
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:19:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Opinions of abolishing Electoral College
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Should the Electoral College be abolished?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 87

Author Topic: Opinions of abolishing Electoral College  (Read 3618 times)
peterthlee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 568
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 09, 2016, 03:48:05 AM »

This year we're heading to the biggest EV and PV split since 1890s.
Should the Electoral College be abolished?
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2016, 03:50:23 AM »

Of course it should.
Logged
peterthlee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 568
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2016, 03:55:13 AM »

More votes of CA came in.
This might push Clinton as the PV winner.
Sad!
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2016, 03:59:15 AM »

lol
Logged
peterthlee
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 568
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2016, 04:03:20 AM »

Off topic: thanks for the moderator to move this thread to 'political debate'
This is just an opinion poll; I voted yes but I don't think it will be abolished in any time soon.
It's been an American tradition.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2016, 09:58:29 PM »

Of course it should be abolished, and the sooner the better. Whatever purpose indirect national elections served in the 18th century has long since been eclipsed by the reality of modern democracy. If we expect our leaders to represent and be accountable to the people, it is imperative that they be elected by... you know, the people.

For the record, I supported abolishing the electoral college long before this election.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2016, 02:19:48 AM »

You are literally stupid if you support keeping the electoral college.

It serves no other purpose than to randomly make the losing candidate the president every couple of cycles.
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2016, 02:04:00 PM »

The supporters of the electoral college can no longer argue that it is effective at keeping out populists.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2016, 04:22:54 PM »

Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2016, 05:07:06 PM »

Jesus Christ yes.

Also, due to a significant possibility of a winner not getting more than plularity, institute IRV.


Sanchez, can you honestly defend the system which allows one who loses the vote to "win"?
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2016, 05:29:29 PM »
« Edited: November 10, 2016, 05:31:00 PM by bagelman »

No. The Dems would learn nothing from this result if they did. They would just run another globalist and watch him/her run up the margins in California and win the nation. The Dems need to run a candidate that can win in the midwest.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2016, 05:57:24 PM »

Without the Electoral College the Democrats would have won the presidency in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016.

So, yeah, get rid of it.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2016, 06:09:33 PM »

It should be abolished. That's my opinion before this election, it's my opinion now.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2016, 06:12:34 PM »

No. The Dems would learn nothing from this result if they did. They would just run another globalist and watch him/her run up the margins in California and win the nation. The Dems need to run a candidate that can win in the midwest.

Well, why do you believe (Bill) Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama won or split the Midwest? Even Dukakis did fairly well there.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2016, 10:38:26 PM »

No. The Dems would learn nothing from this result if they did. They would just run another globalist and watch him/her run up the margins in California and win the nation. The Dems need to run a candidate that can win in the midwest.

Well, why do you believe (Bill) Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama won or split the Midwest? Even Dukakis did fairly well there.

Simple: Their Republican opponents also favored free trade. Trump is radically different from either Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2016, 10:39:36 PM »

Yes, of course.  The person with the most votes should win.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2016, 10:43:29 PM »

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2016, 11:42:42 PM »

There is a lot of electoral reform that can and should be done. The electoral college is outside of the bounds of possibility at the moment, although it should go.

The thing I have my sets on as a possible target is the Iowa Caucus. Now that Iowa is a Likely GOP state, it's far safer for Dems to tell Iowa to f**k off and just pick a different state. The Iowa Caucus is an abomination.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2016, 11:52:06 PM »

No. The Dems would learn nothing from this result if they did. They would just run another globalist and watch him/her run up the margins in California and win the nation. The Dems need to run a candidate that can win in the midwest.

They're likely going to keep doing this anyway. The demographics are on their side. Eventually their popular vote advantage will be so overwhelming even the EC won't be able to stop it.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2016, 11:52:56 PM »

It would never happen, but I like the idea of each sate allocating their EVs via proportional representation. No idea who would have won this last election using that system, but I at least know that McMuffin would have gotten an EV from Utah. Tongue
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2016, 02:23:11 AM »

It would never happen, but I like the idea of each sate allocating their EVs via proportional representation. No idea who would have won this last election using that system, but I at least know that McMuffin would have gotten an EV from Utah. Tongue

Huh? What would be the point of this system? What benefit does it have over direct election?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2016, 10:51:07 AM »

It would never happen, but I like the idea of each sate allocating their EVs via proportional representation. No idea who would have won this last election using that system, but I at least know that McMuffin would have gotten an EV from Utah. Tongue

Huh? What would be the point of this system? What benefit does it have over direct election?
It eliminates the disproportionate effect of winning big states by narrow margins. Under the current system, you can carry a state by .1% of the popular vote and win the same number of electors as if you carried it by 10%. This feature allows candidates to lose the popular vote but win the election by racking up narrow victories in key states. Under a proportional allocation system, close states would split their votes more or less evenly between the two candidates, making the popular vote margin much more important.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2016, 11:00:43 AM »

It would never happen, but I like the idea of each sate allocating their EVs via proportional representation. No idea who would have won this last election using that system, but I at least know that McMuffin would have gotten an EV from Utah. Tongue

Huh? What would be the point of this system? What benefit does it have over direct election?
It eliminates the disproportionate effect of winning big states by narrow margins. Under the current system, you can carry a state by .1% of the popular vote and win the same number of electors as if you carried it by 10%. This feature allows candidates to lose the popular vote but win the election by racking up narrow victories in key states. Under a proportional allocation system, close states would split their votes more or less evenly between the two candidates, making the popular vote margin much more important.

Yeah, but it would be basically a direct election Wink



What was the point of EC btw?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2016, 11:05:46 AM »
« Edited: November 11, 2016, 11:07:54 AM by 1945>1488 »


Madison preferred direct election but the Slave Power raised a stink because their franchise was much more restricted. Having Congress elect the President itself, like they now do in South Africa, was shot down because people were worried about 'intrigue'.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2016, 02:11:38 PM »


Madison preferred direct election but the Slave Power raised a stink because their franchise was much more restricted. Having Congress elect the President itself, like they now do in South Africa, was shot down because people were worried about 'intrigue'.

Madison also had a fear about the power of factions that might unduly impose their will on the nation as a whole without check. He perceived that these factions could be regional in nature and he didn't want a bare majority faction to defeat a substantial minority. De Toqueville described this as preventing a tyranny of the majority.

It is interesting to look at the last period in US history to see a split between the PV and EV winners, which was in the post-Reconstruction era. Both the 1876 and 1888 election saw the Dems win the PV yet lose the EV. The Dems had a huge surplus of votes in the Deep South and in 1888 a win of 49% to 48% in NY was enough to tip the EC to Harrison over the incumbent Cleveland.

Today the Dems have the same type of regional concentration of voters in the Northeast and West Coast that they had in the post-Reconstruction South. Narrow victories for the Pubs in key swing states can flip the EC as it did in both 2000 and 2016.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 15 queries.