Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College - Politics Discussion

[–] Freddy (1325) 2 months ago

only country in the world who does not use popular vote shame on us

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 2 months ago

yeah, we need to be more like our Chinese Overlords.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Huh? China doesn't have a public vote at all.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 2 months ago

true. its not who votes that counts, but those who count the votes. Putin always gets 97% of the vote somehow.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

China doesn't even bother with sham polls

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 2 months ago

it will be like that here soon.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17422) 2 months ago

Two major cities do not get to dictate policy to the rest of the country.

We are not a homogenous society.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Are you of the belief that New York and Los Angeles contain over half the US population residing in them?

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17422) 2 months ago

You ask the stupidest shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

You claimed that "two major cities" would get to dictate policy to the rest of the country without the electoral college.

The two largest cities in the USA are New York and Los Angeles. For them to do that, they would have to comprise over 50% of the US population.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3295) 2 months ago

Very surprised you don’t comprehend the point being made. I read a lot of people criticizing you for playing rhetorical games instead of making your point and I always thought you were treated unfairly. But is sounds like that is what you’re doing here. Or do you genuinely not comprehend the argument about the purpose of the E.C. to protect the influence of small states on presidential candidates who would otherwise only heed the states that have massive population centers like NY and LA?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>Or do you genuinely not comprehend the argument about the purpose of the E.C. to protect the influence of small states on presidential candidates who would otherwise only heed the states that have massive population centers like NY and LA?

I do comprehend that argumen. But Blacksun did not make that argument.

Guess what? More people live in cities. In a democracy, people should decide how the parties align after elections, no? Are you proposing to maintain an artificial effectively anti-democratic equality between those groups?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Also, the way the EC works now is that only the swing states matter.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3295) 2 months ago

“Swing states” are constantly in flux which massively improves the influence of such states in the election of the most important and powerful chief executive in the world. Under a popular election, the citizens of Ohio and Michigan would be afterthoughts in the current presidential race because the candidates could camp out to win the votes in the massive population centers in Texas, Florida, and California. With as close as the R vs D popular vote has been, winning those handful of metropolitan areas would dwarf any need to spend time or attention with the desires of vast swaths of the country. The desires of Houston and Miami and L.A. would naturally become paramount

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

They may change over time, but this is a slow process. Like anyone now though gives a fuck about Vermont or Idaho or Mississipi in a presidential election because the results are obvious.

>Under a popular election, the citizens of Ohio and Michigan would be afterthoughts in the current presidential race because the candidates could camp out to win the votes in the massive population centers in Texas, Florida, and California.

That would be silly as those regions combined do not comprise the majority of the US population.

The biggest problem I can see is the fact that the EC vote is *winner-takes-all* as opposed to proportional. This disenfranchises much of the country.

>Withe as close as the R vs D popular vote has been, winning those handful of metropolitan areas would dwarf any need to spend time in many vast regions of the country.

You would have to win them massively in order for that to be notable, and hope that camping out on FL/CA and NY doesn't get you punished everywhere else in equal measure.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3295) 2 months ago

Your attitude to the interests of Vermont and Mississippi is exactly what Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would say in the absence of the E.C. The E.C. Was a critical component to ensure the states ratified the Constitution. No one ever thought the President was popularly elected so no one ever expected this “every vote should count” to determine the President. The American system is designed to protect against majority rule that you seem to want to impose. It’s fine for small countries but not a massive country like the U.S. with sweeping regional distinctions. You would never have formed the US and you would probably spark massive violence today if you told people in Oklahoma and Kansas and Missouri to prepare for every future president to impose policies desired by crazy California in order to win election

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>Your attitude to the interests of Vermont and Mississippi is exactly what Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would say in the absence of the E.C.

I'm saying that under the E.C. now no-one cares about those states.

>You would never have formed the US and you would probably spark massive violence today if you told people in Oklahoma and Kansas and Missouri to prepare for every future president to impose policies desired by crazy California in order to win election

But again, California would not be dictating laws. They don't comprise the majority of the country in population.

>The American system is designed to protect against majority rule that you seem to want to impose.

I don't want to impose anything. It's not my country. I hate directly-elected or EC elected presidential systems myself, and would sooner convert the USA into a parliamentary system. I think giving so much power to one person is simply not a good idea.

And I'm not saying to get rid of the E.C. - just that California would not dominate if it was gone. And as I said, in the short term: The biggest problem is the fact that the EC vote is *winner-takes-all* as opposed to proportional. This disenfranchises much of the country.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 months ago

Could you be any more ignorant about the rest of the world???

reply

[–] joej2923 (3025) 2 months ago

The electoral college should be abolished.

Most of the states in the electoral college are winner-take-all so that means the votes of roughly half of the voters DO NOT COUNT. The votes of Republicans in California and Maryland DO NOT COUNT. The votes of Democrats in Kansas and Alaska DO NOT COUNT. Everybody's vote should count!

The winner-take-all nature of the electoral college also means that six or seven states decide the election. There are fifty states in the US so the electoral college is broken if only a few states decide the election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511pyn3xw3o * Seven swing states *

The electoral college also forces the US into a two-party system since Congress decided the Presidential race if a candidate fails to win 270 electoral college votes. A third-party candidate will never be able to win 270 electoral votes so the parties in Congress will decide the election.

https://www.270towin.com/content/electoral-college-ties/ * Congress decides if 270 votes not reached *

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17422) 2 months ago

The abolishment of the EC will be the end of the USA overnight.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3025) 2 months ago

I strongly disagree. I'm confident that most people want their votes to count. Under the electoral college, too many votes DO NOT COUNT. There are two examples below from the 2020 election that are disturbing. Arizona was really bad since Biden had a narrow margin of victory and he earned 100% of the electoral college votes. The electoral college must be abolished since all votes matter!

Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 154,188 votes. 2,804,040 people voted for Biden
while 2,649,852 people voted for Trump. Biden won all of the electoral college votes for Michigan so that means that the 2,649,852 votes for Trump DID NOT COUNT.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/michigan

Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes. 1,672,143 people voted for Biden while 1,661,686 people voted for Trump. Biden won all of the electoral college votes for Arizona so that means that the 1,661,686 votes for Trump DID NOT COUNT.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/arizona

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17422) 2 months ago

Too much fraud and shenanigans for a popular vote election to be trusted. The EC isn't perfect, but its the best protection we have against the bullshit that happens on Election Day.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

A popular vote system would weaken the impact of any potential fraud due to the numbers involved being so much higher. You would have to flip votes in the millions across the country in order to change results.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 months ago

That's what they want.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3295) 2 months ago

America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Our system was never designed to popularly elect the Chief Executive so this “every vote didn’t count” complaint is completely irrelevant to our system of electing the U.S. President. It’s something you can say in the Philippines or Turkey but it’s not the American system. When it comes to electing presidents, our federalist system balances the power of the states to ensure the giant, most populated states don’t consume the interests of the smaller states. It was a required formulation to ratify the Constitution and form the country. If you want the smaller states to abandon this influence, you should also be calling to end the system that ensures them the same number of Senators which is likewise undemocratic

reply

[–] joej2923 (3025) 2 months ago

The system stinks and it must be updated with the times. Only male property owners could vote when the system was established around 240 years ago but that changed with the times. The electoral college needs to be replaced with the popular vote.

https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 * John Adams' strict voting requirements *

It's not irrelevant that the votes of people are not counted. The Federalist system was designed to protect the smaller states but it has given them too much power when determining the President. The small states get substantial protection from the two senators from their state. A few senators can disrupt government to get their way so I think it's okay for each small state to have two senators. Small states can also sue the federal government so they have enough protection. The actions of the President impact people across the nation so a popular vote is a better way to pick the President.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17422) 2 months ago

Because they have been taken over by Marxists. They are not Patriots.

reply

[–] blue1981 (7749) 2 months ago

The sponsors are just saying that they don't expect Kamaltoe to win. The Democrats put up a fuck retard for President in 2020 and won both the electoral college and popular vote. 🙄

reply

[–] maixiu (2220) 2 months ago

Every step this country has taken toward becoming more of a direct democracy has resulted in a further erosion in the quality of government. The 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments each diluted the value of the franchise and made our successive election cycles one ever-increasing pageant of political pandering. Good governance long ago took a back seat to politicking, which has created a (small 'r') republican death spiral.

Many places are speeding headlong into allowing non-citizens to vote, and mark my words, next will be a push to lower the voting age (once again), and finally to allow anyone, anywhere, anytime entry into an electronic voting booth. I struggle to understand this perverse lust for handing a ballot to the most ill-equipped and ignorant among us. We all of us live among untold numbers of people who simply cannot reasonably inform themselves to the extent that their vote is meaningful for the long-term health of our municipalities, regions, and nations. You're not being noble or humane by denying human reality and insisting otherwise. Quite the contrary.

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (1763) 2 months ago

"I struggle to understand this perverse lust for handing a ballot to the most ill-equipped and ignorant among us."

so do I

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 months ago

Fantastic comment. Unfortunately, those who need to heed it won't.

reply

[–] tvfan (12741) 2 months ago

It just goes to show how successful they are in manipulating voters.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3295) 2 months ago

So they’d be elected by Los Angeles and five boroughs in New York City. Sounds like an ideal way to marginalize most of the states which form the basis of our federalist system.

reply

[–] Nanook (1951) 2 months ago

This. Even if it's as many as the five biggest cities in the U.S., the principle stands: the agreement, i.e. the Constitution, for the States to join the Union was that each one would have *equal say* (more or less) in federal matters. There are already murmurs of Balkanization; let's not fan those flames.

FWIW, born and raised in NYC and live in L.A. You really don't want to "L.A.-ize" the U.S.

reply

[–] tvfan (12741) 2 months ago

The popular vote makes it easier for them to rig and steal elections. It's no surprise they want to abolish the EC.

Same as why they want to allow illegals to vote, they're against paper ballots, against voter ID, against same day voting, etc.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>The popular vote makes it easier for them to rig and steal elections. It's no surprise they want to abolish the EC.

This makes no sense. You would need to flip millions of votes nationally to steal an election via fraud in the event of a popular vote scenario, whereas under the electoral college you'd only need to flip a much smaller margin in swing states.