The electoral college is what helps my midwestern country ass not get stuck with coastal rules and taxes
@TwitchingJacob, hell yeah! this is one of the reasons I love this country so much! Love the constitution!
@TwitchingJacob, add in the fact that some people want to get rid of the 2 party system and have 3 candidates run for President. Can you imagine the new president being elected by a 34% popular vote? Congrats New York and California get to decide every president
@TwitchingJacob, sorry buddy the coast says you have to become a eunich no choice.
@Richard Cypher, we only have a two party system because they don’t want to share power. There is no rule or anything of only two parties. A third party has won prez a few times in the past. Two parties mean that their platforms revolve into “opposite of the other guys” we need like a 5 party system with run offs for top two and second place is vice prez(maybe. Crazies around might kill winner if their guy got second...)
@thejamesshow00, I don’t agree with losers become vp but the argument I’ve seen is that the official presidential ballot instead of 2 people it’s 3. It’s an argument used by people who think they don’t like either dems or repubs and want a 3rd choice for the actual election. And again without the electoral college it would be a 34% majority vote for president which would be retarded
@TwitchingJacob, except for regulations on cars. (I’m sure there are other examples too) Ca passed efficiency standard; now whole nation has to follow. CA is so big; they won’t make different cars for different states. So they follow Ca’s regulations.
@thejamesshow00, or change the primary system to tiered voting, that would kill the two party system pretty quick.
@TwitchingJacob, okay but as of now, less populated cities have a bigger vote than denser populated cities, and gerrymandering exists too.
@TwitchingJacob, yeah I’m totally for your vote counting for more than mine because...? Corn?
@pleroma77, the primary system is a tool of the 2 major parties.
People don’t get that the parties are private organizations. They are out for their own benefit. Period. Full stop.
@Richard Cypher, we don't need another Woodrow Wilsoncoming to power by winning by 40%.
@seeUpee, why? This system literally says not everyone is equal, which is very clearly in opposition to the whole “all men are created equal” bit
@TwitchingJacob, it’s changed a presidential election twice in the 200+ years of the country, and many regard the outcome of those two elections to be controversial at best, disastrous at worst
@Richard Cypher, why would a win by 34% be bad. Realistically, if that were to happen in a 3 candidate system, then people would still feel that way in a two candidate system. They would just be forced to back someone they dont really want in a two party system
@TwitchingJacob, Please explain how so? Because each state still does their own thing. You know with their own governments and law makers.
What proof do you have that such a thing would happen?
@Pervy Sage Jiraiya, correct. You know how The right complains about the Left creating laws that dont work well for the rural areas. But seems ok with making laws that dont work so well for urban areas.
@SteveTheAlpaca, What would happen if we stop treating people as equals who support electoral colleges. Since those people dont want every citizens vote to count equally?
"I don't think the system works*"
*Except for when it works for me
For awhile i didnt understand the electoral college. Then around 20 someone said so you think these three cities should have the say in what america does and then i understood. Still dont like how it has representatives that can vote outside what their constituents want. It should be an automatic process.
@BlazingBowman, I've always wondered that to! why can they betray the vote,? doesn't that betray the people or basically install someone who's sole purpose is to possibly be a nay sayer?
@Dephenistrator, nay! This system works! Countries down south are copies of our constitution... want to see how it does when the system is corrupt?
Example A: Argentina
The current president that was just recently elected is far left and bought all his votes
@BlazingBowman, I think they need to retain their ability to vote as they see fit. But I also think it’s right to keep up the pressure that they are expected to vote in line with the laws of the state they’re in. If it is mandatory, there’s no point in have a person as an Elector, might as well have a legal instrument instead. Having a person be the Elector adds agency to the college and acts as a safeguard against electing a crazy person. Kind of like the Elector who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton.
@Hot Coffee, yeah and the elector was wrong. The will of the people should never ever be ignored. Elites should not be skipping over the common people and voting as they please.
@Dephenistrator, i guess incase the dumb filthy masses vote for the wrong way i guess. Lol i dont know prolly a hold over rule that made sense at the time in context.
@BlazingBowman, I’m split on the electoral college, but I don’t think it works in its current form, firstly the big city argument doesn’t work, as the top ten biggest cities combined aren’t even 8% of the population of the U.S., however I do understand representing smaller states more than they would in a popular vote, however, in the current system it doesn’t accurately represent the state’s wishes. If a state has 3 electoral votes and a candidate wins with 51% of the vote, then more than a third want the other candidate, I think that for the electoral college to work in the modern era the delegates need to be split according to the percentage, it’s already done in Maine and Nebraska, and it still helps smaller states have a bigger say, but it makes the result more of the will of the people, and less of a game of numbers.
@BlazingBowman, pretty sure one of the more famous Faithless Electors from 2016 was a graduate student. Most Electors are fairly average people. If you’re really concerned, you should apply to be one.
@Hot Coffee, still unacceptable
@Dephenistrator, the founding fathers didn’t actually want the general population to decide how the country was run. They looked down on most of the population as uneducated and therefore unfit to make political decisions. The electoral college was originally comprised of the “best” people from each state, and the electors were free to vote however they wanted so that a “tyranny of the majority” could be avoided. This is also why only wealthy white male landowners could vote in elections at the time. I don’t know why the latter policy was changed, but the former was not. TL;DR, the electoral college was designed to suppress “bad” voters
@Kyroll, the former wasn't changed because of the earth splitting debates about big vs small states, territory vs population. It's still an issue that comes up when the electoral college is threatened with being removed and in this grossly polarized state we are in we shouldn't change it just because whoever does is going to do so with self serving bias corruption at it's helm
@BlazingBowman, But you are ok with the swing states deciding how America runs? See the similarity their? Pay attention to how often they talk about swing states come election time then think about how thats any different than without the electoral college. Besides. Each state has its own set of laws and government. That city in anither state wont make you live like them.
And its not the cities that are deciding it. Its the people. It just so happens more people live in those areas.
And look at it from both sides perspectives. Why should those corn farmers be deciding whats best for those cities?
@Seohn, apples and oranges dude. Three major cities determining how the rest of america is run compared to swing states who have a good chance of going in either direction and could still be outvoted by the other states regardless not a good comparison. Swing states dont determine the outcome of the election they simply give a good helping hand to those who claim them.
Something, something, "it's ok when we do it/when it benefits us!c
@ptitty1231, you nicely summed up political parties in a sentence.
Clinton: wins popular vote by a margin of the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska
Republicans: eLeCtOrAl CoLlEgE pRoTeCt uS fRoM cAlIfOrNiA AnD nEW yOrK
What would the media be, if not hypocrites and liars?
I play both sides of the argument so I always end up on top
@Hellboi, *me, squints at your avatar and thinks "are those legs or boobs?" Clicks for bigger picture, "Nice!"
It just sucks that when a candidate gets more votes, they lose. (Yea Hillary is aids) & this system needs to change. It’s gonna suck when, in the future a candidate loses the electoral college, but win the popular vote again. The question is, how big does the margin have to be till we riot. 5 million, 10 million, 25 million. Votes?
@Monter408, i both agree that it's flawed and the best we have. One of the biggest issues is the independence of our states because any deviations to the plan made half the states piss or the other half. Another huge problem os our political parties are so polarized i don't think they will agree to a change that isn't self serving so it would either get shot down or become law through supermajority in a morally bankrupt way. In short i think we need to clean up internally some before we can raise the issue in earnest within our government.
@Dephenistrator, it boils down to diverging cultures. We aren’t one people from many anymore, we’re becoming 2 peoples from many. Without that shared culture we’re going to fall apart.
@Hot Coffee, true and sad
Wish we could rebuild are democracy for the better of all instead of using an outdated system...
Not that i dont support our government.
I think it shows different points of view through the same publication. You’re saying that’s a bad thing?
That’s only two reasons...
This is what happens when you give participation trophies
It’s interesting. The average age of a constitution across the world is 17 years. America has a constitution that’s 229.
If you play both sides, you're always guaranteed to win!
Is Slate saying that is one of the reasons?