Electoral college girl wrong
You americans really ought to look to canada to see why your college is so good.
We are having our federal election in a couple of weeks. You know what? My vote is pretty much useless. Ontario and Quebec will decide who runs the country. They tend to be left wing.
Now the power house of Canada is Alberta.... so what you find ends up happening, is those liberal places run conservitive Alberta. They end up ignoring the wishes of Alberta and the other conservitive provinces.
@phalcon , is that how it works in canada. What is alberta and the rest of the provinces like farmland mostly?
@phalcon , Bruh, the Liberals have ignored the wishes of almost all Canadians, not just the West
@phalcon , as an Ontario citizen I am voting conservative, but I doubt it will matter. Everyone I talk to says NDP, or Liberals. To be honest though, this year feels like what America had with Hilary Vs Trump. You kind of just don't want any of them.
@phalcon , I have a simple strategy, (Albertan born and raised but living in BC), I vote Green and if by chance they ever win I’ll sit back and enjoy the panic because I guarantee they have never planned that far ahead
@phalcon , as a fellow Canadian, I’ve long since stopped voting. It has never seemed like my vote has ever mattered, even while living in Ontario. There’s rarely a meaningful difference between candidates other than negative things about one over the other.
I detest our system of government.
@phalcon , you forgot one thing bub, merica 🦅 🇺🇸
@I Are Lebo, to me it's about do I want freedom and low taxes vs less, freedom and more taxes.
Though I think the biggest issue is besides elections, there is nothing that holds our leaders accountable.
@Duncan5769, personally I didn't think trump ha been that bad of a choice. The economy is doing well.
@phalcon , my problem with the whole Trump scenario is that there are so many lies about him, from all sides, that it’s nearly impossible to tell what he is actually doing.
He and his die-hard followers would have us believe he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, whereas his most outspoken critics would have us believe he is the second coming of Hitler.
There’s just so much false information constantly being thrown around nowadays.
@I Are Lebo, well heres how I weed through the bs... what's worse? Delusions, or hyperbole?
One side is outright delusional about him and how they treat him, the other side exaggerates how good he is.
But also the side that exaggerates is kind of only a small group of his supporters, many supporters also recognize hes a bit of a narcissist, egotistical, and doesnt know when it's a good time to shut up. On the other hand, the entire other side tends to tell all sorts of lies about him. First its Russia, now its Ukrainian... one lie after another. It's one thing to disagree with people politically, to me it's an entirely different issue when you lie about your opponent.
@phalcon , yeah, that’s...kinda how elections work. If more people vote for a party or candidate, they win. It shouldn’t matter if the voters own more land or live in cities vs rural areas. That’s so arbitrary.
The electoral college is objectively bad. It allows for a ton of vote rigging and disenfranchises millions of voters.
@phalcon , I don’t see a meaningful distinction. Often, the most hyperbole comes from the most delusional people. The two aren’t exclusive. When someone says that Trump is “worse than Hitler”, they’re being both hyperbolic and delusional.
Trump derangement is delusional, but some of his most outspoken fans are just as nuts as his worst critics. The derangement is worse in my eyes, because it’s coming from so many sources.
@griffinstorme, I completely disagree. It’s not just about how many individuals vote for you, otherwise your system is nothing but mob rule, and your minority groups get left in the dust. I’m not just talking about ethnic minorities, but political minorities as well.
The electoral college has its flaws but is still objectively better than just majority rule.
@I Are Lebo, #MakeAmericaAParliamentaryDemocracy2020
Sure, but if you have only the coastal populations picking the president for the entire nation, that’s not good.
@TheAgent, that's what op is saying.
@TheAgent, wish to confirm for you and 26 updoots: that is what op is saying.
Swing and a miss.
@TheAgent, also the difference between city people's opinions and farmer's opinions. as a person who has lived both, neither gives a rats ass about the others struggles.
@Scrabby, for instance farmers dont have the police 10 minutes away but instead like 40 so they need their guns not only to protect themselves from people but also animals. While city people have police 10 minutes away but witness gun violence almost on a daily basis.
@Ewok612, did neither of you see the bottom half of the meme? It’s clearly anti-EC. Talk about a swing and a miss...
@TheAgent, electoral college is a way to disproportional allocate voting power. 1 vote should equal one vote for the president. Congress makes laws and that is why we have two houses so bigger states cannot rule smaller states. if you remove the electoral college and strictly go with popular vote, then everyones vote is equal. Big areas do not overrun small areas. To put more things into context rural areas cover 97% of the usa, yet only account for 20% of the population. 20% shouldn’t be deciding the president. There is no reason why 1 person should have more voting power than another.
@TheAgent, I mean, we should try it. Might be an improvement.
Exactly. The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent say, a coastal population outnumbering the rest, to elect someone who is only going to help them specifically and shjt on everyone else.
@A Flying Panda, yes. That makes sense. The midwest covers land mass greater than coast so less people should have equal vote over majority. Simple...
@Sluggernot, So you want to just have majority votes? So if 51% of people in America decided that the other 49% had to pay double taxes that’d be okay to you? It’s not a perfect system, nothing is, but it beats a pure majority rules scenario that could be disastrous for many people. Yes, it sucks and makes elections difficult and needs modern updating to work better than it is now but throwing it out completely misses the entire point of why it was implemented in the first place.
@A Flying Panda, no. We're taking about a popular vote for an elected official, not a law. The constitution is in place to prevent this sort of ridiculousness you're saying.
@A Flying Panda, then should we not change the system so that black votes count as 5 times more valuable than white votes? After all, that would prevent say, a white population outnumbering the rest, to elect someone who is only going to help whites specifically and shjt on everyone else.
@Ultimatum, are you suggesting a compromise like perhaps 3/5 of a white vote?...I feel like we’ve seen this before...Racism is racism even if you think you’re doing it for a just reason. White people can experience racism too, when it comes down to it a person’s skin color should have 0 effect on the way they’re treated or how they are perceived. Voting based on the amount of perceived skin color is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard, you going to stand at the voting booth with a chart of acceptable super voter skin colors? Lol
@BiteMyShinyMetalA55, I’m not seriously suggesting it, but rather using it as an example of how this bizarre logic looks when you try to apply it to another demographic.
@Ultimatum, thoughts and opinions are unique to people’s upbringing, experiences, and differs greatly from a feature of the body that you have no voice in choosing. Your idea is like arguing everyone who is blonde should get less voting power than red heads because they’re outnumbered...and even then people can still change their hair not their skin color. The only bizarre logic is your metaphors. What I’m loving about this comment section is that everyone arguing for popular voting over the electoral college is being severely downvoted by the “popular” vote.
@BiteMyShinyMetalA55, I’m not really sure what you’re saying here, frankly. It’s not “my idea”, it’s your own, just applied to a different demographic. If you think that it should apply to a person’s thoughts, then why not base it on religion instead? Why shouldn’t a jew have a stronger voice than a christian?
Honestly the argument about the electoral college boils down to this: you like it, because you’re the minority political opinion and the electoral college privileges the minority, or you don’t like it, because you’re the majority political opinion and the electoral college does not privilege the majority.
I’m of the opinion that no citizen’s vote should matter more than any other, for any reason, because I’m an individualist.
@Ultimatum, what I find particularly rich are the people who support the electoral college because it got Trump the victory by not going with the majority vote, but simultaneously support Brexit because it was voted for by a majority of the people.
If you’re gonna support majority rule, at least be consistent about it.
@Ultimatum, you have no leg to stand on here bud. You have no idea how I voted or the reasons why. I never commented on brexit or any other political system in any other country. You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I also don’t think the political minority got trump elected, the people voted in the system as they were supposed to. You’re buying in to the media too much if you think the 2016 election was a fluke. They overhyped their favored candidate and the people took to the polls to let them know how they felt.
@BiteMyShinyMetalA55, the second comment wasn’t really to do with you, which is why I separated it and made it a reply to myself rather than to you; more so just an aside on the topic in general. And for you to accuse me of putting words in your mouth is rather rich for someone who assumes my position in the very same comment. I don’t think the 2016 election was a fluke, because it’s happened before. But it is a verifiable fact that the candidate that the majority of people voted for lost, therefore the minority got him elected.
As for the media, I stopped paying attention to them halfway through 2016 because of the constant bs they put out.
@Ultimatum, *raises arm*
*Announcer voice* Winner!!!
@A Flying Panda, this is why the federal government shouldn’t have as much power as states. There’s so many people spanning an area so wide, they shouldn’t hold that kind of power. No one can realistically do a good enough job that they can help everyone. It’s stupid
@Ultimatum, the difference between voting by skin color and geography is pretty apparent. If we had popular election, where coastal major cities decide every national office, the majority of land in America - while not a city - produces 95% of our goods and output. This would lead to incredible inequities and mismanagement.
The framers of our system of government understood that a centralized and far removed, giant federal system is not good. They want the federal government to be very uninvolved in most affairs. Small, local governments are more responsive to the people that they serve.
Why would coastal city elected officials feel any need to be responsive to Midwest farmers?
@Ultimatum, your argument isn’t sound. I’m also an individualist, but the system that you’re proposing would completely screw over rural communities, who would have the last vestiges of a voice stripped from them. Having one vote be equal to another works great in theory, but in practice, the split is not between individuals but between urban and rural areas, which face different environmental issues and have different priorities.
@I Are Lebo, I don’t even really disagree; the reason we’ve kept the system as long as we have is because it generally works fine. This whole spiel was more idle musings than an attempted refutation of the system.
That being said, I do think that the winner-take-all system that most states use for presidential elections ought to be removed entirely. As it stands there are a frankly stupid amount of votes that basically amount to nothing because the state is solidly red or blue.
@Ultimatum, it seems to me that a lot of this is mitigated at the state level. Governors seem to me (from an outside perspective) to have a disproportionate amount of control over the minutia. That’s how you can have abortion be legal at the federal level but illegal at the state level.
In general, I think our current electoral system is in the process of collapse. I’m not sure what can be done about it, either.
@A Flying Panda, i can’t understand what type of people are downvoting this logic....? I live on the coast but I fully support the electoral college system. It seems so selfish to believe otherwise.
As someone living in that vast, red area, I find it humorous that the large, unused field next to me has more voting power than most people
@Ewok612, yes, even slaves had 3/5 voting power more than some people do now. Californias electoral vote power per 10k citizens is .019 while wyomings is .070. Voting in wyoming has 3.5 most voting power per person. Wyoming is the highest in voting power. So a california person has roughly 30% of the voting power of a person from Wyoming.
@Implicit88, and California as a state has 18 times the voting power of Wyoming. Considering that people living in the same area tend to share similar values that makes Californians 18x as powerful as Wyomingians.
@BigJohnson86, that is disingenuous framing electoral votes does not mean voting power, you have to look at the representation vs the people they represent. Ca has 55 electoral votes and 20 million registered voters. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 219 thousand registered voters. That means for ca every 363k people make up 1 electoral vote while in Wyoming every 73k people make one electoral vote. This means registered voters in Wyoming have almost 5 times the voting power as a registered voter in ca. I believe if we base this on total population the figure is closer to 3.5. So a persons vote in Wyoming matters 5 times as much.
@BigJohnson86, to add to my previous comment california is about 10% of the electoral college while wyoming is .6%. So totally wyoming has less skin in the total but if you take a proportion of voters to electoral percentage in california your vote matters .0000005% of the total electoral college where in wyoming its .0000026% (again about 5 times higher)
Huh. Didn't realize that the funnypics community was so hostile towards anyone slightly left. What a shame.
@ImaginaryKyle, welcome to fp, yes a lot of people hate left leaning views here (even though they are right)
@Implicit88, and lol, left is not any more right than right. Party identity is idiotic. Each and every issue should be weighed on its own merits. Most of the time, I lean towards individual liberty and less government. But some of things can either be claimed by left or right.
The electoral college works because it stops people in cities from voting in people who only care about people in cities. While higher taxes on fuel to pay for social programs sounds wonderful to someone in the city that doesnt own a car. It means that a farmer loses his farm because it becomes to expensive to run his equipment. He had no need of social program that bankrupted him. Now a conglomerate owns his farm and they export goods overseas now we have to buy those goods back at higher prices snowball effect happens now we all are drones supporting the large cities. Fvck that.
@mycatsanahole, simplified example i know but thats a basic view from someone who lives on a small farm and works a night job. I take care of me and mine and i dont want to pay for yours. The electoral college helps ensure i have a say (all be it minute) in what happens in my country.
@mycatsanahole, nailed it. Coastal elected officials would have zero need or desire to serve a population that can not control them.
@mycatsanahole, the opposite can be said true.
@big freedom, assuming your statement is true, the same could be said vice-versa. There is no reason why 1 person should have more voting power than another. Making it a popular vote would be better, and if you want radical(better) change then we should potentially make the winner need to win electoral and popular. That would change the dynamics completely. Add in ranked choice voting and now you have a way better election. But for now, changing to a popular would be helpful.
@Implicit88, but it’s not true by definition. The people in the city already have a large population, so the elected officials HAVE to be responsive to them, or face the repercussions.
Does that make sense? The idea is that they work for us, and have to be responsive to us. If the cities hold an overwhelming voting power, the need to be beholden to the rest of the country is gone.
@Implicit88, I would be interested to see ranked choice. Popular vote is terrible idea for reasons stated above.
@big freedom, not exactly. Even if you look at california 40% of the state still goes red. You can see this in popular vote mechanics. There was only a 3.04% populace in the total vote count that chose the popular choice. About 4 million people out of the 135 million that voted.
@big freedom, if you saw a popular vote differential of 15% there could start to be an argument.
@Implicit88, start to be an argument for which? Changing a system that has been wildly successful for a very long time, because some people didn’t like the result is incredibly ill advised.
Remember in 2015 when Democrats were saying “if Trump doesn’t win he won’t accept the results and will want to change our sysytem! It’ll be a constitutional crisis!”
Now those same people want to do exactly what they were afraid he would do.
I always recommend using “the shoes on the other foot” philosophy. Imagine it was “your team” that won and the “other team” didn’t like it. Would you still argue to change the system?
I would not be in favor of popular vote had Hillary won and Trump lost. TBH I hated both of them at the time.
@big freedom, successful? Depends on the metrics. I mean if there was a 15% in popular vote difference on a consistent basis due to geographical reasons then we would say the electoral college is needed however we saw a 3% in the last election and even less in other elections. When the electoral college was made it was mainly a north or south issue with south wanting slaves(non citizens) to count as votes to up their numbers and geographical speaking more population was north. We live in a completely@different era where information is on the internet for everyone, geographically speaking there is no advantage to being a president from a more populated area vs not as your message can be just as easily spread.
@big freedom, i am for changing the system not because of trump but because it just makes sense to have all votes of equal power. There is no valid reason why any 1 person should have more voting power than another.
@Implicit88, you’re missing the point. IDGAF about “their message”. They HAVE to be responsive to us. Otherwise you get China currently.
@big freedom, currently we have a president that only cares about 20% of the population since that is all that needs to get him reelected. We are more like china now than ever.
@Implicit88, I agree with the first part. That’s the problem with party politics though. Only a couple states are swing votes, and even within them only a couple counties matter.
California for instance is guaranteed to go D, regardless of the trash the party throws up. There is no need to try to “win” CA.
This is why I like either ranked choice, or get rid of winner takes all for each state. Have their votes be proportional to the votes. Good compromise
I find with weird it's not simply the most votes that win, seems easy and straightforward
You guys. You're saying fewer people should count more because they're spread out over a larger land mass. That's totally irrelevant. There is still a large local set of lawsfrom city to county to state before federal. So it's not like Kansas is being bullied. The bottom line is majority should rule in a democracy even if they're consolidated to a smallish area.
@Sluggernot, Well it's a good thing the US is actually a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule is mob rule. Plus, the electoral college was built for the sake of rural areas. What happens in cities is a large percent of them lean one way or the other. So actually it leads to one party rule. California alone is around 39 - 40mil. With rural areas of the state leaning more Republican (less population). That leaves the coast of the state leaning Democrat. So out of the 40 or so million in the state, maybe 10 million of them are republican (this is probably an over-estimation). To even out that alone you would need 4 other states with 5 million citizens worth of Republicans to even it out.
You look at it as "my vote is worth less."
People who care about rural opinion look at it as "leveling the playing field." They dont have the population to fight with. So as said before the coasts would rule.
@TheGoogler, rural people don't deserve a system pushed in their favor just because they're rural. Bottom line is smaller populations voting counts more, when it shouldn't, because of the electoral college. Absurd in a republic, imo.
@Sluggernot, I guess we can say the same thing about transgendered people then? Why should any minority get any special privilege then?
@TheGoogler, expand your explanation. But no one should just get more. More than they have? Maybe they are disparaged. More than another persons right? No.
@Sluggernot, the electoral college protects ALL parties. Say dems and repubs switched, it would protect the rural dems.
@Sluggernot, thing is, nobodies rights are being stomped on with the electoral college. You have the right to vote for a representative, who then votes for the president etc.
Also, what I was saying is that if the fact that rural people having a bigger voice than the size of their population bothers you, then so should all the minority movements. Should majority rule take over, the minority party will never rise again.
@TheGoogler, not the same. Minorities feel (rightly so) they have lesser rights than others. This is an injustice. Everyone should have equal rights. Every individual vote should carry the same weight.
@Sluggernot, injustice? All votes ARE equal. This is because you vote for representation. You don't vote directly for the president. California gets 55 of the 538 colleges. That's a bit over 10.2% (sorry, wrote 15 for some reason) of the electoral college, which is in line with the states massive population. And the vote for that 10.2% representation is completely "democratic." California gives the 55 to whichever side gets over 50%. Many other states do too (save a couple who distribute). 8 states only get 3 electoral votes. That's about
.5% of the vote each, in line with their small populations. It's all fair, and this is because it comes with protections for those who, once again, dont live in the city. As cities tend to have "hive mind," which makes most of them swing one way.
@Sluggernot, but, as I see I won't change your mind and it feels like we are dancing in circles, I'm going drop out here. Have a good day, I enjoyed the talk :)
Ps. Thank you for being civil. These talks tend to blow up for some reason.
@TheGoogler, the issue with your argument is number of reps per number of people in a state. The electoral numbers are equal to the combined number of senators and house representatives per state.
This is where our issue lies. Let’s take Montana as an example. They have 3 electoral votes. There is 1.062 million people in Montana. That’s about 354 thousand people per electorate
Now look at California. 39.56 people, and 55 electorates. That translates to 719 thousand people per electorate.
So a vote in Montana has over twice the overall sway in a given election than a vote in California does. This is where the inequality feels like it’s coming from.
@Sluggernot, I don't necessarily agree with the electoral college as it applies to Repub/Demo (I personally don't care for either) but I could see the argument of people in cities getting laws passed more easily (since they have a higher population) and said laws could negatively impact farmers and rural workers. Their output would never match cities even though some of their needs may be legitimate.
@AlyciaFear, elected officials != unconstitutional laws
@AlyciaFear, that being said, I think it should be the responsibility of law makers to weigh in all considerations so we could do away with the electoral college. So for me the EC isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it also isn't that good, and there is very much the possibility of it being abused.
@Cloverleaf, I was done with this, but the thing is that the votes are still equal. The electoral college has a limit because of the same issue as majority rule. If it's "so many electoral votes per so many citizens" then it just makes it the same as what I said before. So maybe they do get more people per electoral? The bigger states gets multiples more electorals so, in essence, more power over the elections. Only 6 states have 30% of the electoral. California making up a bit over 10% of them. It is not you vs other states. It's you vs the people in your own state. And I would say, with california having that 10% of the electoral it is already to one parties advantage (as it almost never changes). As they only need about 41% more. And I still say it's fair, even if the repubs and others votes are essentially washed over in California as they still voted for their electors (and lost).
@TheGoogler, To throw my hat into the ring, my biggest issue with the EC is how votes are given. The winner takes all system, used by most states, allows for an entire party to never see the light of day if they are in the minority. Given the Californian example, all the dems need to do to secure 55 seats is to garner more than 50% of the vote, however using an alternative system such as proportional would allow for a more realistic representation. This is not to mention the current ECs bias to two parties.
@AndorraBall, I agree that more states should take up what states like... Maine do. Which is just as you say, splits the electoral via districts. But, that could potentially have bigger problems we cannot see just yet. It's one of those things that would need to be evaluated extensively.
@TheGoogler, With districts you would run into the same problem that they have at the even the county level. Jerrymandering(Not sure if I spelled it right) Then you'd have a party overall get only like 1 representative when in reality they should have gotten 5.
@TheGoogler, you are literally the girl in the picture.
@TheGoogler, that’s the issue. Both ways if one side loses in a majority of the states their votes seem to not count at all. A republican in a Democrat controlled state and Democrats in republican controlled states. It just basically seems to be ‘if your side is the minority, your vote is effectively silenced’. This would be offset if both parties were largely cooperative in lawmaking, but they’re not.
Some states do split, like Maine, but then you have district lines and gerrymandering to contest with. Another proposal that seems like it’d be more effective is a state giving its electoral votes to the party that wins the popular vote country wide.
I do apologize but the current system is largely outdated, and in the end candidates tend to ignore states that already swing one way. Take Montana for example. In the last 60 years it’s only swung democratic twice. What there gives reason for either party to visit the state?
@AlyciaFear, politicians see their responsibility to their constituents. The EC strengthens the constituency of certain areas.
@Sluggernot, our system was designed on purpose to prevent federally elected officials that have no need to serve the people. Someone that is elected entirely by coastal metropolis would have zero need or desire to serve the rest of the country.
@TheGoogler, electoral college was built in part to count slaves as votes for land owners.
@TheGoogler, rural people account for 20% of the population, is it fair for 20% to rule over the other 80%? Imagine you are out with a group of friends 5 of you. 4 want to go to mc donalds but your weird friend wants to go to jack in the box. Well your weird friend saying well i have more voting power because i live in a less populated area so my voting power trumps all 4 of yours. To jack we go. This is exactly how the electoral college works. Its a plain power grab by the minority to control the majority.
@TheGoogler, location is not protected by the constitution or bill of rights, sex is. And transgender people ask for equal rights not greater rights. How would you feel if trans people all of a sudden counted for 3 votes per person?
The electoral college is broken
@Reluctantkitty , I have duct tape!
I sure am glad our elections and legislation are determined by land mass!
Where’s the joke?
4 things. 1. The electoral college was decided at a time when our fledgling nation needed consensus about electing presidents. 2. By establishing the electoral college, it gave small population centers the voice they needed to help vote in officials. 3. With the rise of boomers in the 50s - 70s, we nearly quintupled our population centers, thus changing the electoral college more into what we see today. 4, it no longer has any bearing on our current state of government, as those population centers have grown up, and out of the requirements. The elctoral college is unconstitutional now as it presents unequal representation of states and their interests. We have a system speaking for us instead of the people.
Heh, it’s true, but no one’s changing anything.
I'm in the orange area! I'm important!
Why should the president not represent the majority of America?
Say what you will about the electoral college the fact that maybe 5 "swing states" decide our president each year is evidence that its crap
Imagine if only 3 cities mattered in this election.
What about the times they do whatever the fvck they want instead of what their state votes for ?
@SmoothCriminal, i dont think this has ever happened, that is when a vote changed by the electorate made a change in president.