Talk Elections

Why don't the Democrats try and win the electoral college?

It would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate it and that's just not going to happen. I've heard and read all the arguments and yes, a constitutional amendment will be needed to effectively eliminate it.

It would make more sense for Democrats to start addressing and appealing to the needs of the nation as a whole, and not just thin slivers of land along the Left coast and small areas in the upper NE. It would be easier to win that way than some dead end effort to eliminate the electoral college.

Just try and win with the rules that are in place first.

We did. We won 4/7 of the last elections through the Electoral College.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Out of the last 5 elections you have lost the EC 3 times.

Out of the last 8 elections Dems have only won the mythical popular vote twice, same as Repubs.

Out of the last 10 elections the Repubs have won the mythical popular votes 4 times and the Dems still twice.

And what do you propose that would do?

You would have to amend the constitution to do that and you simply cannot do it. Easier to appeal to ALL real Americans. In other words, your message sucks and the broad cross section of real America hates you.

"Equalizing" (as you put it) Senators per person would require amending the constitution. Quit proposing dumb things that will never happen.

Democrats won the popular vote in 1992-2000, 2008-2016 (6 times). You don't need a majority of the vote to win the PV.

The Democrats do need to broaden their appeal, Hillary should have done better. However, this is a long shot, but there is a thing called the NPVIC.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

I don't know what you mean or how this refutes my point, but the Democrats have won the EC in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, while losing it in 2000, 2004, and 2016 - Hence, we have won 4 of the last 7 elections in the electoral college and my point is correct.

Out of the last 1 elections, Democrats have never won! Sad!

The Democrats won 6 of the last 7 elections.  I'm guessing it's another political party the American people hate, not the Democrats.

if you keep this pc crap going you may never win like that again.

()

What does this even mean? I literally stated a fact...

Boo.
Let's expand the House instead.

See my previous post in this thread.

Guys, in order for the Electoral College to be eliminated, three fourths of all states would have to vote in favor of that proposal (Constitutional Amendment). That is never ever going to happen. Small states, which dominate the Electoral College, will never vote for the Amendment that would effectively render them irrelevant.

So, let’s stop this futile discussion about elimination of the Electoral College.

You realize that the NPVIC exists? And that Vermont and DC are part of it?

Right. It's absurd how people are like "small states will never vote for NPVIC because they'd be irrelevant under it, unlike the current system" where D.C. is super relevant.

so the OP proposes, democrats should do identity politics, just for other identities...i see.

I think the Democrats ARE trying to win the electoral college.

But you only won 4/10 of the last elections, or 5/13.

It was a fluke that Trump won WI, PA, and MI

()

Cory Booker/Steve Bullock 266
v
Trump/Pence 235

Dems will win in 2020

Don't worry MAGA. Democrats are actually exploring a sun belt strategy, which is highly correlated to the Electoral College.
NPVIC won't happen by 2020, so they will again focus on the EC.

Of the last seven elections, the Dems have won four. Anybody can pick an arbitrary time frame to stack the numbers in their favor.


Nominate Cory Booker and I can guarantee Dem turnout will be even lower than 2016 and Trump would win reelection by a larger margin than 2016.

I agree with this 100%. I desperately want Trump out in 2020 and to be honest practically anyone should get more votes than him but the brainwashed cult following he has that will never make any sense to me means that whoever goes up against him will still have  to be decent to win.

Booker is a nice guy and all with some good ideas but he wouldn't win. Would be perceived as too far left.

Also, support IRV or Approval Voting which would make elections more fair.

His problem wouldn't be that he's far too left.  It would be the opposite.  Dem turnout wouldn't be as strong because he's too corporatist.

Sorry to bump this thread, but seriously, this MAGA guy from earlier in the thread had to be trolling, right?  Either that or he failed simple math.

There is no choice but to win the Electoral College, OP. You're acting like the Democrats aren't campaigning in Pennsylvania and Florida. It's such a simplistically dumb piece rhetoric.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

Democrats benefited from the Electoral College in 2004 , 2008 and 2012


Kerry and Obama(Both times) could have lost the popular vote and still have won

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

That's not my point. I'm talking about representation. Maybe it's best to bark up another tree.

What about representation?

Not going to explain. If you are interested in political debate, I suggest you go there that's not where I'm headed.

So you're just going to throw out a buzz word and not explain it?  Whatever.  Your argument is not able to be justified.  The Dems absolutely, 100% do not have a massive advantage in the EC.  Just not defensible.

Trump has admitted the EC is unfair himself. But since those are the rules, that is how he played, so to blame him is beside the point.

My argument is not that his election is illegitimate because he lost the PV.  I'm merely disputing the absurd notion that Dems have an advantage in the EC. 

It is justifiable, however, if you want to debate this isn't the place to do it. I see you're a new user so create a thread there and I will debate you if you wish.

Furthermore, like most things, Trump contradicted himself later and said the EC is awesome.

To be honest, Kerry beating a man who lost the popular vote  while losing the popular vote would've been the most hilarious thing ever.

Who has the advantage in the EC definitely fluctuates, my point wasn't that Republicans have always had an advantage.  It's just that, in today's political environment, it's a hard sell to argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they won the popular vote by 2 points but lost the EC fairly clearly, 306 to 232, in the last election.

With the advent of VA suddenly surging into one of the most solid Democrat states in the union, Democrats have well over 200 electoral votes tied up into HI, west coast, the Northeast, IL and MN alone. And that's not counting that at a presidential level NV, NM and CO are leaning Democrat to begin with AND the idea that Trump won PA, WI and MI on a fluke.

The only thing left that's keeping the Republicans in business anymore is that they can count on OH and FL as the margin of victory they need to win the EC and even that may not be enough for them anymore. If I could ever figure out how to post the map I could put it in a picture