If democrats abolish the Electoral College republicans would never win the WH

LV426 said:
Because in 1/3 of the elections this century, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Presidency.
Click to expand...

It is misleading to evaluate a system based on 20 years of a 232 year history. In those 232 years the electoral college winner did not win the popular vote in 5 elections (in 1824 no candidate won a majority of electoral votes and in 1876 a special commission made the decision). "This century" is only 1/5 complete.

LV426 said:
It's not a competitive system if one party has to rely on rigging the rules for its electoral benefit because it can't legitimately win an election, and is openly contemptuous of the democratic process.
Click to expand...

No party "rigged" the electoral college system for its benefit since it was part of the Constitution before the current parties even existed. A Constitution which made no provision for popular votes.

LV426 said:
But WHY would one party dominate? Because their policies appeal to the vast majority of voters. You're arguing against that. If you want to win elections, you need to get more votes. If you can't get more votes, why should the system give you a handicap? Because you think you're entitled to it? You're not.
Click to expand...

I don't think one party would dominate. That was the assumption made in the OP. Both candidates got a record number of popular votes in 2016 showing the close competition between the parties (especially when you consider the congressional and state races).

The system gives neither party a handicap although changes in party and regional loyalty change the advantages of each party over time. Republicans benefit by the population movement to red states and will gain more House seats and electoral votes by 2024. Democrats benefit by demographic changes. And, of course, coming up with a popular candidate determines a lot of the outcome since policies are less of a factor today than group loyalty.
 
Flash said:
It is misleading to evaluate a system based on 20 years of a 232 year history.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean, clearly it's broken if this result has happened 33% of the time since 2000. There have been other instances where there's been a split between the EC and popular vote, and in every single case, it never worked out for the benefit of the country.


"This century" is only 1/5 complete.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if we've run into this problem 33% of the time, then clearly it needs to be fixed.

If your car's transmission broke down 33% of the time, would you still drive that car, or would you replace the transmission?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
I used to blame James Madison for the electoral college, but, I believe that he actually had good intentions.

I think he would also be in favor of dropping it today.

James Madison would be the first one to tell you that the forefathers didn't think of everything when they wrote the CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHY THEY DRAFTED IT SO THAT IT COULD BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE.
Click to expand...

That is why it was called a "bundle of compromises." Many provisions, including the electoral college, was simply a compromise among those favoring other methods. The most popular was election by Congress but that would result in a weak executive. A few favored popular votes but knew that would not get the acceptance of those states with a smaller population.

It is almost impossible to identify their intent since that varied largely among delegates. The best source is Federalist #68.

Those favoring election by Congress assumed they would get their way since they didn't think anyone would win a majority of electoral votes and it would go to the House. Those favoring popular vote assumed the states would eventually give that function to the voters.
 
Flash said:
No party "rigged" the electoral college system for its benefit since it was part of the Constitution before the current parties even existed. A Constitution which made no provision for popular votes.
Click to expand...

Flash, bubbulah, the whole concept of the electoral college is to rig the system. That's why it was designed this way back when they only intended for white, male, landowners to vote.
 
Flash said:
I don't think one party would dominate. That was the assumption made in the OP. Both candidates got a record number of popular votes in 2016 showing the close competition between the parties (especially when you consider the congressional and state races).
Click to expand...

Biden won by at least 7 million votes.

Clinton won by about 3 million votes.

In 2018, the Democrats won the House by over 10 million votes in the aggregate, and when all is said and done, will have also beaten the GOP in the aggregate vote count in 2020, despite losing seats. If you don't think that is a fundamentally broken system, then you're either ignorant, or seem so craftily...and that's not good.
 
Into the Night said:
There are no problems with the electoral college.
Click to expand...

I agree it should be retained. But when a candidate can win the electoral college by winning 11 states destroys some of the intent to have a republic by having state interests represented.

The system today encourages campaigning only in swing states, but candidates, parties, and popular votes were not foreseen.
 
LV426 said:
Why would one party dominate the Presidency, though? You have to ask yourself that question.
Click to expand...

stupid and lazy people vote for free stuff........it's a huge reason why the EC was created.......it's also a huge reason why the democrats want to destroy a republic and replace it with a majority rules system..........

you idiots refused to learn a lesson from the founders, instead choosing to believe that the founders were just a bunch of old white men slave owners in an attempt to denigrate a nation they tried to create that preserved individual freedom over tyranny of the majority.
 
Flash said:
The system gives neither party a handicap although changes in party and regional loyalty change the advantages of each party over time.
Click to expand...

Of course the system gives one party an advantage...the party that finds itself consistently losing elections, then blaming the elections instead of their own shitty, failed policies, candidates, and ideas. Without the Electoral College and if there was fair representation in the Senate and House, the GOP would have no control. None. And rightly so because they didn't earn it.

You seem to think they earn it by virtue of simple existing. That's entitlement. If states couldn't draw their own federal districts, the GOP's deficit in the House would be much greater. Partisan gerrymandering is the only reason the GOP remains relevant because they have no policies, no record of success to celebrate.


Republicans benefit by the population movement to red states
Click to expand...

No they don't. Georgia is a perfect example of how Republicans are not benefitting from people moving to red states.


Democrats benefit by demographic changes. And, of course, coming up with a popular candidate determines a lot of the outcome since policies are less of a factor today than group loyalty.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Policy is all I care about. The GOP and Conservatism have no coherent policy. They are fascists, as we see right now where they refuse to accept the results of an election because it didn't go their way and they couldn't cheat to win it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
stupid and lazy people vote for free stuff........it's a huge reason why the EC was created.......it's also a huge reason why the democrats want to destroy a republic and replace it with a majority rules system
Click to expand...

No, the EC was created to give slaveowners more say in the government, that's all.

Democracy is majority rules.

If you couldn't win a majority of votes, why should you get to control government?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you idiots refused to learn a lesson from the founders, instead choosing to believe that the founders were just a bunch of old white men slave owners in an attempt to denigrate a nation they tried to create that preserved individual freedom over tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

I can say with 100% certainty that the founding fathers never contemplated a world where 40 million people live in one state while only 500,000 live in another.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
stupid and lazy people vote for free stuff
Click to expand...

What free stuff? Everything we want to do is paid by taxes.

You must be confusing us with your guy Trump, who handed $30B in welfare vote buying to farmer trash whose businesses he killed with his dumb trade war that you supported.

Moron. Liar. Fraud.
 
LV426 said:
No, the EC was created to give slaveowners more say in the government, that's all.
Click to expand...
wrong

LV426 said:
Democracy is majority rules.
Click to expand...
and we're a republic, not a democracy

LV426 said:
If you couldn't win a majority of votes, why should you get to control government?
Click to expand...
if you were truly interested in the history, i'd tell you what our republic is supposed to be. you're probably not, so stop asking stupid questions
 
LV426 said:
Hey idiot, maybe your dumb, lying ass needs a history lesson, but not everyone was allowed to vote in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

that has zero to do with how federal offices were filled and why..............let me know if you're interested in learning about a republic
 
LV426 said:
What free stuff? Everything we want to do is paid by taxes.

You must be confusing us with your guy Trump, who handed $30B in welfare vote buying to farmer trash whose businesses he killed with his dumb trade war that you supported.

Moron. Liar. Fraud.
Click to expand...

dumbass low information prole..............if you can't understand the wrongness of our taxation system, the wrongness of how BOTH parties (yes, BOTH, so don't bother trying to justify your democratic idiocy), then you're beyond help. let me know if you want to learn the truth
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wrong
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can think that when it is literally written into the Constitution that slaves don't count as whole people, but 35 of a person to be factored into an allotment of representatives that are voted for by only white, landowning men.


and we're a republic, not a democracy
Click to expand...

Do you know that that means, though? It doesn't mean "give the minority power at the expense of the majority because the minority can't win elections anymore."


if you were truly interested in the history, i'd tell you what our republic is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit what someone who exaggerates their military service for effect on an anonymous message board thinks what our Republic is "supposed to be".

It was supposed to be for rich, landowning white men. That's why women couldn't vote. That's why black people couldn't vote. Do you still think that's the case?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
they had big population centers and they had huge farmlands. pretty sure they knew
Click to expand...

LMAO!

A "big population center" was 50,000 people in 1776.

And NO, they didn't have huge farmlands...unless they were slaveowners.

More people live in Atlanta today than lived in the whole US in 1776.

About twice as many people live in Los Angeles County ALONE than lived in the entire country in 1776.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that has zero to do with how federal offices were filled and why..............let me know if you're interested in learning about a republic
Click to expand...

Yes, it has everything to do with how those offices were filled because only a select handful of people actually got to vote for them.

Yeesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top