Elizabeth Warren calls for the end of the Electoral College, some states already make moves to disavow it

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#1 Posted by nintendoboy16 (35879 posts) -

As she says this, states like Colorado have voted in favor of candidates winning the popular vote.

We're not going to get rid of this backwards system overnight, but the more that work to get rid of it, the better. Other countries laugh at us with this crappy system.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#3 Edited by Vaasman (13567 posts) -

On the one hand this coming up now is pretty plainly from desire for democrats to win.

And yet on the other hand, the Electoral college is miserably outdated and if it isn't getting reworked it flat out needs to go away. Let's just forget for a second that if you're voting for republican or democrat in a deep blue/red state respectively, your vote is effectively worthless. But the concept for state electors having been fixed to 538 has left many states with ridiculously overinflated worth. Using the two population extremes of California and Wyoming, if you vote in Wyoming, your vote for president is worth nearly four times as much, thanks to the amount of electors your state has per capita. Imagine being worth 1/4 as much as someone else voting for exactly the same thing.

We should have rebuilt or done away with this system when we fixed the house size over a century ago.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#4 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (10518 posts) -

Be done with the EC. We shouldn't let the minority dictate our highest office. We don't use anything similar for other offices so I don't see a need to use the EC for the presidency.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#5 Posted by mattbbpl (16876 posts) -

This will never happen, lol.

Avatar image for volsung
#6 Edited by Volsung (261 posts) -

If you got rid of the electoral college the GOP might actually have to modernise and align it's positions with that of Americans.

But right now the US is a minority ruled joke that masquerades as a democracy.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#7 Edited by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: Democrats are on "an election roll" this last week, first Pelosi and some unknown state representative wants to lower the voting age to 16 and now Warren seems to either not know or be confused as to how hard it actually is to remove the electoral college, since it can only be removed with a constitutional amendment and that has to be approved by 2/3 in both chambers and then 3/4´s of the states has to approve it.

Also while Colorado can decide, how they prefer their EC votes go, there is no mandate for a states EC to vote as the state voted/Decided. The Colorado Electoral college can decide on their own how they vote. But it´s always nice to see Democrats subvert democracy.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#8 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166189 posts) -

They definitely need to do something about the EC. No way should the minority elect the president.

Avatar image for horgen
#9 Posted by Horgen (119942 posts) -

Balance it again.

@Jacanuk said:

@nintendoboy16: Pelosi is on "an election roll" this last week, first she wants to lower the voting age to 16 and now she seems to either not know or be confused as to how hard it actually is to remove the electoral college, since it can only be removed with a constitutional amendment and that has to be approved by 2/3 in both chambers and then 3/4´s of the states has to approve it.

Also while Colorado can decide, how they prefer their EC votes go, there is no mandate for a states EC to vote as the state voted The Colorado Electoral college can decide on their own how they vote. But it´s always nice to see Democrats subvert democracy.

You really need to explain this one to me better. How is Democrats undermining democracy(by removing EC) when EC can decide on their own who to vote for? This just sound like EC today can undermine democracy as much as they want, but generally don't. Removing EC would be removing one hinder to Democracy.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#10 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1763 posts) -

Everyone knows this has been tried literally hundreds of times, right?

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#11 Posted by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@horgen said:

Balance it again.

@Jacanuk said:

@nintendoboy16: Pelosi is on "an election roll" this last week, first she wants to lower the voting age to 16 and now she seems to either not know or be confused as to how hard it actually is to remove the electoral college, since it can only be removed with a constitutional amendment and that has to be approved by 2/3 in both chambers and then 3/4´s of the states has to approve it.

Also while Colorado can decide, how they prefer their EC votes go, there is no mandate for a states EC to vote as the state voted The Colorado Electoral college can decide on their own how they vote. But it´s always nice to see Democrats subvert democracy.

You really need to explain this one to me better. How is Democrats undermining democracy(by removing EC) when EC can decide on their own who to vote for? This just sound like EC today can undermine democracy as much as they want, but generally don't. Removing EC would be removing one hinder to Democracy.

Let´s say the people in Colorado voted for one candidate which is done by popular vote, the one with the most votes in the state's election gets the 9 EC. Now though the Democrats have made that irrelevant what the people of Colorado want, they will throw the votes at whoever gets the majority in the national popular vote, no matter what the actual majority of the people in Colorado says.

Meaning someone in Colorado has zero incentive to go vote at all.

Avatar image for horgen
#12 Posted by Horgen (119942 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Let´s say the people in Colorado voted for one candidate which is done by popular vote, the one with the most votes in the state's election gets the 9 EC. Now though the Democrats have made that irrelevant what the people of Colorado want, they will throw the votes at whoever gets the majority in the national popular vote, no matter what the actual majority of the people in Colorado says.

Meaning someone in Colorado has zero incentive to go vote at all.

They still affect the popular vote. Removing the EC would be wiser imo though.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#13 Posted by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:

Let´s say the people in Colorado voted for one candidate which is done by popular vote, the one with the most votes in the state's election gets the 9 EC. Now though the Democrats have made that irrelevant what the people of Colorado want, they will throw the votes at whoever gets the majority in the national popular vote, no matter what the actual majority of the people in Colorado says.

Meaning someone in Colorado has zero incentive to go vote at all.

They still affect the popular vote. Removing the EC would be wiser imo though.

Not really affecting it that much Colorado has a population of around 5.9 million which around 3.6mill is registered to vote and 60% of that goes to vote, meaning that even if all of them voted one side, they would quite easily be cancelled out by California or New York.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#14 Edited by comp_atkins (35510 posts) -
@Vaasman said:

On the one hand this coming up now is pretty plainly from desire for democrats to win.

And yet on the other hand, the Electoral college is miserably outdated and if it isn't getting reworked it flat out needs to go away. Let's just forget for a second that if you're voting for republican or democrat in a deep blue/red state respectively, your vote is effectively worthless. But the concept for state electors having been fixed to 538 has left many states with ridiculously overinflated worth. Using the two population extremes of California and Wyoming, if you vote in Wyoming, your vote for president is worth nearly four times as much, thanks to the amount of electors your state has per capita. Imagine being worth 1/4 as much as someone else voting for exactly the same thing.

We should have rebuilt or done away with this system when we fixed the house size over a century ago.

colorado's approach seems misguided to me, if we're stuck w/ EC votes for now, I'd rather see all states adopt a proportional approach. it would make more states worth contesting ( and hence representing by the potential candidates ) and would help to strip away the "land is more important than people" approach to the current EC, which is just stupid IMO

interesting bit on how different approaches would have changed past US elections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-outcome-other-systems/?noredirect=on

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#15 Posted by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:
@Vaasman said:

On the one hand this coming up now is pretty plainly from desire for democrats to win.

And yet on the other hand, the Electoral college is miserably outdated and if it isn't getting reworked it flat out needs to go away. Let's just forget for a second that if you're voting for republican or democrat in a deep blue/red state respectively, your vote is effectively worthless. But the concept for state electors having been fixed to 538 has left many states with ridiculously overinflated worth. Using the two population extremes of California and Wyoming, if you vote in Wyoming, your vote for president is worth nearly four times as much, thanks to the amount of electors your state has per capita. Imagine being worth 1/4 as much as someone else voting for exactly the same thing.

We should have rebuilt or done away with this system when we fixed the house size over a century ago.

colorado's approach seems misguided to me, if we're stuck w/ EC votes for now, I'd rather see all states adopt a proportional approach. it would make more states worth contesting ( and hence representing by the potential candidates ) and would help to strip away the "land is more important that people" approach to the current EC, which is just stupid IMO

interesting bit on how different approaches would have changed past US elections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-outcome-other-systems/?noredirect=on

A proportional system seems to be the best way forward, since getting rid of the EC in favour of a Popular vote system is not viable considering it would mean 2-3 states can decide the outcome every single year, it´s the same reason why no Republican has won in states like California in the last 5 elections.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#16 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166189 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Vaasman said:

On the one hand this coming up now is pretty plainly from desire for democrats to win.

And yet on the other hand, the Electoral college is miserably outdated and if it isn't getting reworked it flat out needs to go away. Let's just forget for a second that if you're voting for republican or democrat in a deep blue/red state respectively, your vote is effectively worthless. But the concept for state electors having been fixed to 538 has left many states with ridiculously overinflated worth. Using the two population extremes of California and Wyoming, if you vote in Wyoming, your vote for president is worth nearly four times as much, thanks to the amount of electors your state has per capita. Imagine being worth 1/4 as much as someone else voting for exactly the same thing.

We should have rebuilt or done away with this system when we fixed the house size over a century ago.

colorado's approach seems misguided to me, if we're stuck w/ EC votes for now, I'd rather see all states adopt a proportional approach. it would make more states worth contesting ( and hence representing by the potential candidates ) and would help to strip away the "land is more important that people" approach to the current EC, which is just stupid IMO

interesting bit on how different approaches would have changed past US elections:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-outcome-other-systems/?noredirect=on

A proportional system seems to be the best way forward, since getting rid of the EC in favour of a Popular vote system is not viable considering it would mean 2-3 states can decide the outcome every single year, it´s the same reason why no Republican has won in states like California in the last 5 elections.

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#17 Edited by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#18 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166189 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

No that doesn't add up. Way to take a simple and simplistic approach to the falsehood that two states would decide every election. Whereas now we don't have democracy when the minority decides.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#19 Edited by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

No that doesn't add up. Way to take a simple and simplistic approach to the falsehood that two states would decide every election. Whereas now we don't have democracy when the minority decides.

Of course it adds up.

Clinton won California with more votes than she had in the final national popular vote, meaning that if California had gone more to Trump´s side he could have had a much better total vote.

Same goes for New York. No other state has the population numbers.

But it´s a moot debate, So far there won´t be a "national popular vote general election" and after next election, if you guys win, you will have forgotten all about it.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#20 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166189 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

No that doesn't add up. Way to take a simple and simplistic approach to the falsehood that two states would decide every election. Whereas now we don't have democracy when the minority decides.

Of course it adds up.

Clinton won California with more votes than she had in the final national popular vote, meaning that if California had gone more to Trump´s side he could have had a much better total vote.

Same goes for New York. No other state has the population numbers.

But it´s a moot debate, So far there won´t be a "national popular vote general election" and after next election, if you guys win, you will have forgotten all about it.

Because facts matter..........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Doesn't seem fair now does it

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#21 Posted by Solaryellow (4738 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Be done with the EC. We shouldn't let the minority dictate our highest office. We don't use anything similar for other offices so I don't see a need to use the EC for the presidency.

Similar offices such as representatives and senators who only represent a state or specific district rather than an ENTIRE country like the President?

Avatar image for zaryia
#22 Posted by Zaryia (7810 posts) -

The GOP needs less people to vote, it's the only way they "win". They are just less popular.

Avatar image for horgen
#23 Posted by Horgen (119942 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

Oh no, a political party has to change it course to stay relevant.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#24 Edited by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

Oh no, a political party has to change it course to stay relevant.

Well, not really what I said, I don´t mind a natural change in a party to follow it´s voters

But a change only to cater to a minority who becomes more and more radical on one side is not what democracy is about.

Which is also why Republicans sit on 30 (22 fully controlled) state governments while Democrats have 18

Avatar image for horgen
#25 Posted by Horgen (119942 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

Oh no, a political party has to change it course to stay relevant.

Well, not really what I said, I don´t mind a natural change in a party to follow it´s voters

But a change only to cater to a minority who becomes more and more radical on one side is not what democracy is about.

Which is also why Republicans sit on 30 (22 fully controlled) state governments while Democrats have 18

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#26 Posted by Jacanuk (18114 posts) -
@horgen said:

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

State wise, yes the popular vote is a minority since it´s based on a few states who grow their population exponentially compared to other states. Look at a map of how the states voted and you will see most of America is red and not blue, it´s the same in local state elections, you have a select few highly populated areas where they vote blue and then the rest of the state votes red. also, remember America is not a single country, it´s a union of states.

Avatar image for vfighter
#27 Posted by VFighter (4597 posts) -

Dems are a sad sad bunch, WE LOST LETS CHANGE THE RULES SO WE HAVE A CHANCE!!!

Avatar image for ad1x2
#28 Posted by ad1x2 (7350 posts) -

Since Colorado is doing what they are doing in response to Hillary Clinton losing the election, it would be ironic if in 2020 Donald Trump won the popular vote but would have lost the electoral college by four or five votes if Colorado didn’t have to honor their promise to hand their votes to the popular vote winner.

Avatar image for sonicare
#29 Posted by sonicare (56549 posts) -

Doesnt that require an act of congress?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#30 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10518 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

Be done with the EC. We shouldn't let the minority dictate our highest office. We don't use anything similar for other offices so I don't see a need to use the EC for the presidency.

Similar offices such as representatives and senators who only represent a state or specific district rather than an ENTIRE country like the President?

So? What is the rationale for indirectly electing our president but not every other seat? It's arbitrary and obsolete. Every argument you make in favor of the electoral college could be applied to lower level offices as well.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#31 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10518 posts) -

@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Math says that isn't true..........unless other states are of the same mind. In which case they should be elected.

If 2 + 2 is 4 than maths say that a popular vote system would not just favour Democrats but also force the Republicans to go back on what people want and adopt a more left-leaning political line. Which has nothing to do with democracy

Oh no, a political party has to change it course to stay relevant.

The horror! God forbid the minority vote doesn't get their way when less people support their candidates and positions!

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#32 Posted by Sevenizz (3394 posts) -

So let California and New York decide every president - for the whole country?

Not happening.

Avatar image for Shmiity
#33 Posted by Shmiity (6263 posts) -

I mean it feelsweirdman when you lose by 3 million votes and win

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#34 Posted by nintendoboy16 (35879 posts) -

@Sevenizz: No, it's to give EVERYONE a vote. All the EC has been someone in the higher echelons going akimbo with their middle fingers to voters (which we already have enough institutions doing, like the LDS Church in Utah, but I suppose you think they are preserving Utah's Democracy, I bet...). No other country has this.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#35 Edited by Gaming-Planet (19884 posts) -

Only bad things to come with a direct democracy. She will regret it when she sees a huge political shift in congress our government system. The future is authoritarianism, either a new form of fascism or communism.

This will ignite the current culture war as more states go underrepresented. Next stop, civil war.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#36 Edited by comp_atkins (35510 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

State wise, yes the popular vote is a minority since it´s based on a few states who grow their population exponentially compared to other states. Look at a map of how the states voted and you will see most of America is red and not blue, it´s the same in local state elections, you have a select few highly populated areas where they vote blue and then the rest of the state votes red. also, remember America is not a single country, it´s a union of states.

most of America's LAND is red, not blue.

not its people.

again, who do we want deciding elections, land or people?

currently:

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#37 Posted by nintendoboy16 (35879 posts) -
@Gaming-Planet said:

Only bad things to come with a direct democracy. She will regret it when she sees a huge political shift in congress our government system. The future is authoritarianism, either a new form of fascism or communism.

This will ignite the current culture war as more states go underrepresented. Next stop, civil war.

Dude, righties have been predicting civil war even with the current system now. Alex Jones did as recent as last year when he said it would happen 07/04/2018.

Avatar image for horgen
#38 Posted by Horgen (119942 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:
@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

State wise, yes the popular vote is a minority since it´s based on a few states who grow their population exponentially compared to other states. Look at a map of how the states voted and you will see most of America is red and not blue, it´s the same in local state elections, you have a select few highly populated areas where they vote blue and then the rest of the state votes red. also, remember America is not a single country, it´s a union of states.

most of America's LAND is red, not blue.

not its people.

again, who do we want deciding elections, land or people?

currently:

How else will we ensure having mostly older white men voting and ruling the country? :P

Avatar image for zaryia
#39 Edited by Zaryia (7810 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

State wise, yes the popular vote is a minority since it´s based on a few states who grow their population exponentially compared to other states. Look at a map of how the states voted and you will see most of America is red and not blue, it´s the same in local state elections, you have a select few highly populated areas where they vote blue and then the rest of the state votes red. also, remember America is not a single country, it´s a union of states.

Congratulations on having empty land.

Blue gets many more individual votes in the Presidential elections, Senate elections, and Congressional elections. That's tangible.

You only like the EC because it benefits your less popular party.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-won-house-popular-vote-largest-midterm-margin-watergate-n938996

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html

This is the same reason the GOP loves gerrymandering and is against more lax voting rights and for strict voting rights. The Turtle doesn't even want a Election Holiday, because it will hurt them.

Avatar image for JimB
#40 Posted by JimB (2415 posts) -

It will take 3/4 of the states to approve the change to the Electoral College as well as 3/4 of congress and the senate to make the change. Making a change is just wishful thinking. Instead of winning an election some people just want to change the rules.

Avatar image for horgen
#41 Posted by Horgen (119942 posts) -

@JimB said:

It will take 3/4 of the states to approve the change to the Electoral College as well as 3/4 of congress and the senate to make the change. Making a change is just wishful thinking. Instead of winning an election some people just want to change the rules.

Are you talking about GOP?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#42 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10518 posts) -

@horgen said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

State wise, yes the popular vote is a minority since it´s based on a few states who grow their population exponentially compared to other states. Look at a map of how the states voted and you will see most of America is red and not blue, it´s the same in local state elections, you have a select few highly populated areas where they vote blue and then the rest of the state votes red. also, remember America is not a single country, it´s a union of states.

most of America's LAND is red, not blue.

not its people.

again, who do we want deciding elections, land or people?

currently:

How else will we ensure having mostly older white men voting and ruling the country? :P

I say we simply have urban centers break off into city-states. Give them a standard 3 electoral votes as is the rule and then more based on population. See how the GOP would love to see these city-states standing up for their rights!

Avatar image for ad1x2
#43 Posted by ad1x2 (7350 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@horgen said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Jacanuk said:
@horgen said:

The popular vote is a minority? The EC favours huge landmasses with few voters.

State wise, yes the popular vote is a minority since it´s based on a few states who grow their population exponentially compared to other states. Look at a map of how the states voted and you will see most of America is red and not blue, it´s the same in local state elections, you have a select few highly populated areas where they vote blue and then the rest of the state votes red. also, remember America is not a single country, it´s a union of states.

most of America's LAND is red, not blue.

not its people.

again, who do we want deciding elections, land or people?

currently:

How else will we ensure having mostly older white men voting and ruling the country? :P

I say we simply have urban centers break off into city-states. Give them a standard 3 electoral votes as is the rule and then more based on population. See how the GOP would love to see these city-states standing up for their rights!

That may actually help the GOP more than it would hurt it. Out of all of the states with at least one city with a population of a million people or more, Texas (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio), Arizona (Phoenix), and Pennslyvania (Philadelphia) were the only ones that went to Trump in the 2016 election. In California, while almost 8.8 million voted for Clinton, almost 4.5 million voters voted for Trump, which was only 300,000 less than in Texas and a little over 200,000 less than in Florida. Who knows how many stayed home because they assumed that Clinton was going to win and didn't bother voting (the same can be said about Democrats in Texas).

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#44 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (10518 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@horgen said:

How else will we ensure having mostly older white men voting and ruling the country? :P

I say we simply have urban centers break off into city-states. Give them a standard 3 electoral votes as is the rule and then more based on population. See how the GOP would love to see these city-states standing up for their rights!

That may actually help the GOP more than it would hurt it. Out of all of the states with at least one city with a population of a million people or more, Texas (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio), Arizona (Phoenix), and Pennslyvania (Philadelphia) were the only ones that went to Trump in the 2016 election. In California, while almost 8.8 million voted for Clinton, almost 4.5 million voters voted for Trump, which was only 300,000 less than in Texas and a little over 200,000 less than in Florida. Who knows how many stayed home because they assumed that Clinton was going to win and didn't bother voting (the same can be said about Democrats in Texas).

Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso all went blue in the 2016 election (Counties). You're kidding yourself if you think city centers, by and large, would favor the GOP. I would gather that the same holds for Philly and Phoenix. However, you have to understand that the argument is absurd. I'm applying the 'it's land, not people', argument by intentionally dividing land masses into different areas and giving them a set allowance of EC votes.

Bolded: this holds true for blue or red states, just switch the parties, and I think it's a huge detriment that the EC creates. If anything it's a good argument to make in order to rid ourselves of the EC.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#45 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166189 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@ad1x2 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@horgen said:

How else will we ensure having mostly older white men voting and ruling the country? :P

I say we simply have urban centers break off into city-states. Give them a standard 3 electoral votes as is the rule and then more based on population. See how the GOP would love to see these city-states standing up for their rights!

That may actually help the GOP more than it would hurt it. Out of all of the states with at least one city with a population of a million people or more, Texas (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio), Arizona (Phoenix), and Pennslyvania (Philadelphia) were the only ones that went to Trump in the 2016 election. In California, while almost 8.8 million voted for Clinton, almost 4.5 million voters voted for Trump, which was only 300,000 less than in Texas and a little over 200,000 less than in Florida. Who knows how many stayed home because they assumed that Clinton was going to win and didn't bother voting (the same can be said about Democrats in Texas).

Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso all went blue in the 2016 election (Counties). You're kidding yourself if you think city centers, by and large, would favor the GOP. I would gather that the same holds for Philly and Phoenix.

Philly is generally blue.........

Avatar image for ad1x2
#46 Edited by ad1x2 (7350 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@ad1x2 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@horgen said:

How else will we ensure having mostly older white men voting and ruling the country? :P

I say we simply have urban centers break off into city-states. Give them a standard 3 electoral votes as is the rule and then more based on population. See how the GOP would love to see these city-states standing up for their rights!

That may actually help the GOP more than it would hurt it. Out of all of the states with at least one city with a population of a million people or more, Texas (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio), Arizona (Phoenix), and Pennslyvania (Philadelphia) were the only ones that went to Trump in the 2016 election. In California, while almost 8.8 million voted for Clinton, almost 4.5 million voters voted for Trump, which was only 300,000 less than in Texas and a little over 200,000 less than in Florida. Who knows how many stayed home because they assumed that Clinton was going to win and didn't bother voting (the same can be said about Democrats in Texas).

Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso all went blue in the 2016 election (Counties). You're kidding yourself if you think city centers, by and large, would favor the GOP. I would gather that the same holds for Philly and Phoenix.

Bolded: this holds true for blue or red states, just switch the parties, and I think it's a huge detriment that the EC creates. If anything it's a good argument to make in order to rid ourselves of the EC.

I never said that the big cities would favor the GOP. I was saying that going by the scenario that we broke off the big cities (assuming we are talking about one million+ cities) and gave each of them at least three EC votes a piece (NYC should get the most with their 8 million population), most of the big cities already fell in states that went to Clinton, meaning the remaining GOP voters in those states would keep their votes. For the GOP, it would hurt with Texas since three of the one million+ cities that went blue are in their state, but it would help with California, Illinois, and New York.

But when it comes down to it, trying to get rid of the EC probably isn't going to be what gets Democrats back into the White House anyway. President Obama smashed McCain and Romney during his two elections and got almost 70 million votes his first election. If the DNC came up with a better candidate or NBC didn't sit on the Access Hollywood tape until a month before the election and they released it during the primaries, Trump probably wouldn't be president right now. They need a really good candidate, hoping that hatred is enough to make Trump a one term president may not work the way they think it will.

Democrats don't have control of enough states to amend the constitution to swith to a nationawide popular vote, so talking about it is just a pipe dream for now. Colorado's nine EC votes are unlikely to be the deciding factor unless we have another Bush/Gore situation and if it was I could see the losing candidate trying to challenge it in court assuming that they lost the nationwide popular vote but won the Colorado popular vote. They would probably be better off just doing what Maine and Nebraska does.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#47 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10518 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@ad1x2 said:

That may actually help the GOP more than it would hurt it. Out of all of the states with at least one city with a population of a million people or more, Texas (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio), Arizona (Phoenix), and Pennslyvania (Philadelphia) were the only ones that went to Trump in the 2016 election. In California, while almost 8.8 million voted for Clinton, almost 4.5 million voters voted for Trump, which was only 300,000 less than in Texas and a little over 200,000 less than in Florida. Who knows how many stayed home because they assumed that Clinton was going to win and didn't bother voting (the same can be said about Democrats in Texas).

Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso all went blue in the 2016 election (Counties). You're kidding yourself if you think city centers, by and large, would favor the GOP. I would gather that the same holds for Philly and Phoenix.

Bolded: this holds true for blue or red states, just switch the parties, and I think it's a huge detriment that the EC creates. If anything it's a good argument to make in order to rid ourselves of the EC.

I never said that the big cities would favor the GOP. I was saying that going by the scenario that we broke off the big cities (assuming we are talking about one million+ cities) and gave each of them at least three EC votes a piece (NYC should get the most with their 8 million population), most of the big cities already fell in states that went to Clinton, meaning the remaining GOP voters in those states would keep their votes.

The math would still not be in your favor. My hypothetical doesn't rely on any number to break down. It could have been any number of city-states, and then they all default to 3 votes per land mass (2 for Senate and 1 for the House). The entire point of the exercise was to show you how ridiculous a default of 3 EC credits is, regardless of population. Trying to argue against the scenario I provided is missing the entire point. I could come up with a myriad of scenarios based on land mass using different criteria.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#48 Edited by Gaming-Planet (19884 posts) -
@nintendoboy16 said:
@Gaming-Planet said:

Only bad things to come with a direct democracy. She will regret it when she sees a huge political shift in congress our government system. The future is authoritarianism, either a new form of fascism or communism.

This will ignite the current culture war as more states go underrepresented. Next stop, civil war.

Dude, righties have been predicting civil war even with the current system now. Alex Jones did as recent as last year when he said it would happen 07/04/2018.

I'm a leftist though, mainly because of my economic views.

Alex Jones is a clown but a funny clown.

Avatar image for DonaId
#49 Posted by DonaId (96 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet: amen out of all the assholes to shut down google shuts down the funniest one :(

Why couldn’t Fox News be shut down?

Avatar image for rmpumper
#50 Posted by rmpumper (504 posts) -

@Sevenizz: you don't seem to understand how democracy works. Without EC republican votes would actually matter in those states (just like dem votes would matter in red states) so a lot more people would turn up to vote instead of sitting at home, because "my vote does not matter because dems/reps will win anyway".