nintendofan85
Good grief.
What is your opinion on the electoral college? I personally think it needs to go and I see no reason for the United States to keep it.
-
Join The Bell Tree's discussion for today's first look at the Nintendo Switch 2: "Nintendo has revealed the Nintendo Switch 2."
Electoral college
- Thread starter nintendofan85
- Start date
-Apples-
“Assorted” Collector
I support keeping it the electoral college. Reasons:
1. Votes should be based on state sovereignty. If we abolished the electoral college, it would take two states to determine a winner. Every state deserves a voice.
2. Abolishing the electoral college would also spurn the rural voters and only listen to the urban voters.
1. Votes should be based on state sovereignty. If we abolished the electoral college, it would take two states to determine a winner. Every state deserves a voice.
2. Abolishing the electoral college would also spurn the rural voters and only listen to the urban voters.
I have always believed that the electoral college was outdated and needs to go. Recent elections have only served to validate my point of view.
It was necessary at the time it was created because information did not travel well across the country. Therefore, it made sense to elect a few informed voters to represent their areas. Now that we have the internet and everyone has easy access to understand the candidates' political platforms, it only gets in the way.
As far as I am concerned, people vote, not states. The electoral college takes the vote out of the hands of the people and places it within a system that is growing increasingly biased.
Why should one person's vote count more than another person's just because of where they live?
Why should all electoral votes for a state go to one candidate even if the popular vote in that state was close, like 51/49?
The electoral college suppresses votes. I know some people who are liberals but refuse to vote in my state because it is so conservative. They know their vote won't make a difference. I'm sure it's the same for some conservatives living in liberal states. The only way to guarantee that every vote counts is to go to a popular vote.
It was necessary at the time it was created because information did not travel well across the country. Therefore, it made sense to elect a few informed voters to represent their areas. Now that we have the internet and everyone has easy access to understand the candidates' political platforms, it only gets in the way.
As far as I am concerned, people vote, not states. The electoral college takes the vote out of the hands of the people and places it within a system that is growing increasingly biased.
Why should one person's vote count more than another person's just because of where they live?
Why should all electoral votes for a state go to one candidate even if the popular vote in that state was close, like 51/49?
The electoral college suppresses votes. I know some people who are liberals but refuse to vote in my state because it is so conservative. They know their vote won't make a difference. I'm sure it's the same for some conservatives living in liberal states. The only way to guarantee that every vote counts is to go to a popular vote.
the electoral college was made specifically to prevent someone like trump from being elected
it clearly failed at that, so it either needs to be overhauled or thrown out
it clearly failed at that, so it either needs to be overhauled or thrown out
DJStarstryker
Senior Member
I personally don't think a minority of the country should have their voices be heard louder than the majority of the country.
It's also frustrating living in a state that is politically opposite of your own beliefs and feeling like your voice isn't heard.
It's also frustrating living in a state that is politically opposite of your own beliefs and feeling like your voice isn't heard.
Sharksheep
(⨀🞃 ⨀ )◄
For the people who need a refresher on the electoral college:
And the problems with it
And the problems with it
DJStarstryker
Senior Member
I completely agree with your entire post, but there is something I want to say to everyone in the US who is reading this thread and is 18+:
I'm going to vote in-person tomorrow, risking my own health since we're still in a pandemic, even though I feel like my vote may or may not directly make a difference. I believe this may be the most important US presidential election in our lifetimes. I think everyone who is physically able to should vote. Especially with the threats that some votes may be thrown out because they were mail-ins or drive-thrus... Every vote might count more than it has in the past.
nintendofan85
Good grief.
These are exactly my sentiments. Plus, the electoral college is why campaigning is limited by American presidential candidates to swing states, and no others.
Imbri
Resident Night Mare
It needs to be done away with. The argument that a large state will sway the decision in a popular vote doesn't make sense, because not everyone will vote the same in those states (or any other, for that matter), so it still will be on a per vote basis.
And as @nintendofan85 says, it will also do away with the focus on 3-4 swing states and make candidates focus on everyone.
And as @nintendofan85 says, it will also do away with the focus on 3-4 swing states and make candidates focus on everyone.
-Apples-
“Assorted” Collector
Now if there is anything that should be thrown out when it comes to the electoral college, it should be the winner-take-all thing. The winner-take-all system should only apply if a state is worth 9 votes or less, but if it has at least 10 votes, they should split it into different regions. For instance, Texas may have 42 votes when the year ends, but to win all 42 votes, you need to win the popular vote in all five regions of Texas.
Sharksheep
(⨀🞃 ⨀ )◄
Why 9 or 10? How is this any different from gerrymandering and dividing up the votes to be more favorable towards one party than the other.
Gerrymandering is also an issue because it can get regions to flip to the opposite party even though the actual numbers say otherwise. What would solve this is have each person count as one vote because then it doesn't matter whether you are from because each vote is weighted fairly.
-Apples-
“Assorted” Collector
I’m not saying all states should have 9 or 10 votes. If they have more than 9, then the winner-take-all system shouldn’t apply, and only apply to different regions of the state. It’s kinda interesting that the founding fathers have a specific vision of our country, but they were unaware of the long-term issues.
I agree that gerrymandering is also an issue that was exploited by both parties. Republicans took advantage of it, but thanks to the surprise suburban votes, this is no longer their advantage.
Sharksheep
(⨀🞃 ⨀ )◄
I'm asking why is 9 the cut off since it's arbitrary regardless of what number was picked. Say they do this, politicians are still going to try to pick a number that would be more favorable for their own party. Maybe it's 4 or 6 or 9. It's just another layer of gerrymander that would be much harder to undo on a national scale inside of the district and county level governments. Winner takes all system doesn't work at all. I would much rather we have a rank voting system so we don't have this 2 party system. Regardless of which party you are, there are a lot of differences within a party. Like if my number choice doesn't win, I'm okay having candidate b or c but I for sure don't want candidate d even though d might be the top contender for the other party.
-Apples-
“Assorted” Collector
Cause 9 is a one-digit number and 10 is not. But if I had to pick a better cut-off mark, I’ll probably go with 6.
daringred_
✧ stupid lesbian ✧
i'm not from the US so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, and i don't know enough about the electoral college, but i feel like "the candidate picked by the majority is the winner" should be common sense, no? if you have a system where the candidate with the most votes can actively lose, as happened in 2016 iirc, then it's clearly a broken system and shouldn't be in place.
Last edited:
samsquared
飛べ
it's blatantly undemocratic & encourages voter suppression
and using the "but the founders!" argument just proves that the founders weren't set out to create a representative democracy in the first place.
every state and every territory should get a say in their government and every person being governed should get an active choice in who's representing them. the health of our democracy would drastically improve without the electoral college.
some of the many benefits besides each vote being weighted 1:1 would be that: 3rd party candidates would have a real fighting chance & would diversify elections from the 2-party-system, candidates would have to innovate their platforms to appeal to urban voters (where most people in the country live) to stand out instead of the "tow the moderate line" that they're doing now to win the midwest, candidates like trump who appeal to a small but zealous demographic would almost certainly never be elected again as carrying margins of the vote to win an entire state would be impossible, you'd never worry about 'faithless electors', it would be extremely hard to rig a popular vote, and more. A political scientist could probably explain the rest.
EDIT one more thing: to rural voters,
your lives are affected exponentially more by your local and state representatives than they are by the federal government. The federal governments regulations affect the most populous areas of the country the most. think of the last time you saw the national guard or other military personnel in your town (unless you live on a base). how militarized are your police officers? how many polling places are there in your town- and how many do you need? how many post offices run in your town? how many public schools/colleges&universities? think of what the federal government provides for your everyday needs. it pales in comparison to the scale of services needed for large cities, where there are THOUSANDS of precincts, THOUSANDS of post offices, THOUSANDS of schools- it is difficult for many rural Americans to visualize just how many people live in these large areas. All of these people are regulated more strictly by the federal government than rural Americans because they simply rely more on the services the government provides.
To this end, your state should sign the The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact! hopefully your state has agreeable candidates. if enough people support the initiative then your state will likely listen. the compact promises to nullify the impact of the electoral college & be representative of the will of the people nationally by contributing all the electoral votes of the state to whoever won the national popular vote. This compact, if enacted, will almost certainly be the impetus to overthrowing the electoral college altogether and will likely inspire another constitutional amendment, ensuring equal voting rights for all citizens of the US. so support this initiative if you can!
and using the "but the founders!" argument just proves that the founders weren't set out to create a representative democracy in the first place.
every state and every territory should get a say in their government and every person being governed should get an active choice in who's representing them. the health of our democracy would drastically improve without the electoral college.
some of the many benefits besides each vote being weighted 1:1 would be that: 3rd party candidates would have a real fighting chance & would diversify elections from the 2-party-system, candidates would have to innovate their platforms to appeal to urban voters (where most people in the country live) to stand out instead of the "tow the moderate line" that they're doing now to win the midwest, candidates like trump who appeal to a small but zealous demographic would almost certainly never be elected again as carrying margins of the vote to win an entire state would be impossible, you'd never worry about 'faithless electors', it would be extremely hard to rig a popular vote, and more. A political scientist could probably explain the rest.
EDIT one more thing: to rural voters,
your lives are affected exponentially more by your local and state representatives than they are by the federal government. The federal governments regulations affect the most populous areas of the country the most. think of the last time you saw the national guard or other military personnel in your town (unless you live on a base). how militarized are your police officers? how many polling places are there in your town- and how many do you need? how many post offices run in your town? how many public schools/colleges&universities? think of what the federal government provides for your everyday needs. it pales in comparison to the scale of services needed for large cities, where there are THOUSANDS of precincts, THOUSANDS of post offices, THOUSANDS of schools- it is difficult for many rural Americans to visualize just how many people live in these large areas. All of these people are regulated more strictly by the federal government than rural Americans because they simply rely more on the services the government provides.
To this end, your state should sign the The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact! hopefully your state has agreeable candidates. if enough people support the initiative then your state will likely listen. the compact promises to nullify the impact of the electoral college & be representative of the will of the people nationally by contributing all the electoral votes of the state to whoever won the national popular vote. This compact, if enacted, will almost certainly be the impetus to overthrowing the electoral college altogether and will likely inspire another constitutional amendment, ensuring equal voting rights for all citizens of the US. so support this initiative if you can!
Last edited:
why do you think that the popular vote isn't a good solution?
also what system does your country have?
