Should the electoral college be abolished in favour of a new system...

Should the electoral college be abolished in favour of a new system? Or should the popular vote independently elect the President?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/news/election/us2016/results
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Trump won both.

You wouldn't be saying shit if Clinton won. Deal without you scum sucking parasite. Acting like you're in favor of a better republic when you're really undermining it.

No. However the Electoral college shouldrevised to work the way people think it works. Wjere you win the state, you get all thet EC votes. Instead of probably get the votes from the unelected "super delegates."

/thread

Completely agree.

Please stop... Just please...
Please stop now.

No. If we did away with it, we'd basically have 4 or 5 major cities deciding who the president would be every time. Electoral college gives the less populated parts of the country a voice and make their votes count.

I don't think I read that right. Could you explain a bit more? My understanding was that a party that wins the majority of EC votes gets all of the EC votes for that state.

nope. she up by 1.8 million votes

I think that all states should have split votes like Maine, it would ensure that regions that wanted to vote for their respective canidate would win college cotes for the canidate they want in office

Super delegates only apply to the Democratic party in their primaries, they have no direct role in the general election. I do agree with you that the idea of super delegates is retarded though.

Depends on the state. Some are winner-take-all, some allow the electors to split depending on which parts of the state/what proportion votes for which candidate. Most are the way you described, though.

I see, thanks man

No, It is the way it is because the founding fathers knew human nature. They knew people couldn't be trusted, and candidates wouldn't even bother going to middle country states with smaller wide spread populations. They would just go to coastal cities which would create an even more fucked up system where the majority suppresses the minority.

But the wasn't any middle states when they made the constitution? There's no way they could've predicted it as well

bullshit. IF shes up (which she propably isnt anymore when all votes are counted) its 500k max

Yes. I'm not even butthurt about Trump either.

Only Maine and Nebraska split their votes

I used to think it should be the popular vote, but that would mean clinton would be prez. So i think it should stay the same.

ah well I guess I was a little confused. But still the members of the EC are not elected and in most places could vote differently from the will of that state, right?
In any case the EC should be reformed, the popular vote idea doesnt work because of the cultural differences in states. One state could decide for everyone, and thats not cool either.

No he didnt.

bbc.co.uk/news/election/us2016/results

They didnt need to predict it, they already had it in the original 13 states. Cities and farmlands were around back then too. The founding fathers were all about checks and balances.

His core idea is correct though. Direct democracy means that whatever majority group at the time can have free reign to influence the government to the opinions of the time, even if those opinions trample human rights of minorities of the citizens in general. It's meant as a safeguard to protect the rights that they saw (and I believe still absolutely are) unalienable no matter the time or current public climate.

Again, the state decides how it's electors cast their votes. Some have their electors bound to the popular vote from their area of the state, and some have it so that their electors could cast their vote however they want, even if their representative area voted opposite from them. However that rarely happens, for obvious reasons.

That's why it's amazing. They looked at Greek and Roman Philosophpers who wrote and studied human nature. They saw that humans are greedy and lie. The common person will not read a single notable article or policy that the candidate proposes. They will usually see titles that convey some type of strong emotion. Like
Obbama's thing was "Change," he promised change. He said we're going to change America. He appealed to the emotions of the voters not his actual policies. Character is an aspect to a strong candidate, but policies and intentions are what really matter. I guarantee both Hillary and trump lied profusely just to get the votes. So with an Electoral College, It takes the responsibility out of the hands of the people. They won't have to study up on each candidate. The popular vote is actually voting for the democratic or republican representative in the electoral college. It's the people's responsibility to vote for candidates in the electorate who represent their views.

ok thanks. I think we are agreeing, Im just saying all EC should vote the way their population says to. As in bound by law.

fak u OP, you worthlesss lib

If it was bound by law then the populist would have the power. People just need to realize when it comes to voting for local gov within the state is much more important than the actual presidential election.

That wasn't the question cocksucker. He won. Get his dick out of your mouth already. Jesus baby fucking christ

I see what you mean, and I think I'd tend to agree but I just haven't done enough research into it to make a formalized opinion. Even if all electors were bound to the popular vote of their region, it would still certainly be a safeguard against the mob rule that the framers feared, but I'm sure there was a legitimate reason at some point that caused some states to leave their electors technically unbound, I'd just need to look into it and see if I agree with the reasoning.

Back in high school and all I thought (probably like most stupid teenagers) that direct democracy/absolute popular vote of the people was infallible. Since taking a few government classes in college though, and those with an exceptional professor, I've realized the importance of "saving the people from themselves" so to speak. It's a fine line of giving government enough power to act for the good of the people even if it's against the popular opinion, and giving it too much power as to start trampling rights and liberties.

Not necessarily, though I see where you're coming from. The electors in states represent regions of that state, so it gives an ability to separate the regional opinions and differences inherent within states and continue to give less-populated areas a voice.


Honestly, I think what I would be okay with is having electors be bound to the vote of their region, but make it so that all states split their electoral votes instead of winner-takes-all.

There are no super delegates in the general election. Unpledged or 'super' delegates are limited to primaries and caucuses for the Democratic party. The Republican party has three electors per state that are seated despite the results of the election, but they are bound by party rules to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The General election is different in many ways, not least of which is that the rules aren't based on the whims of party members, but on constitutional law.

In the electoral college there is a possibility for 'unpledged electors' to appear on ballots, but this hasn't happened since 1964. Some states allow for 'faithless electors'; these are electors admitted to the elector college that have pledged their vote to a candidate and vote against that candidate. A faithless elector essentially is voting against the popular vote that gave them their seat, but this has only happened twice this this century. In 2004 an elector from Minnesota seemingly accidentally vote for Edwards instead of Kerry and Edwards and in 2000 Barbara Lett-Simmons chose not to vote in protest of residents of Washington D.C.lacking voting representation in congress.

I think each state should have its own president. Need leaders closer to home

The electoral college helps level out the advantage that cities like NYC and LA have over the rest of the country

Yes. Democracy, constitutional/ democratic republic is the people's vote, not a select few. It should be the popular vote.

If you support the electoral college, understand this also means that the electoral college can vote however they want. They don't have to put in trump. They could put in Hillary or Bernie or whoever the fuck they want. Understand that. It's a double edge sword so don't cry if they do something like that.

sup niggers,

eurofag here

does the popular vote count for anything?

or are the americans just fucking retarded and make a big deal about castting a meaningless vote?

But donald dick tastes so good. Why do you think Milo supported him so much.

Literally sit down and learn about what you're talking about. Hell even actually reading this thread would've probably prevented you from posting your dumb-ass assumptions about our electoral system.

Electoral college is fine, its some what fair and prevents the smaller states from being ignored entirely (though not entirely, but it works out better than popular vote)

Adding a Ranked Choice would be ideal. If we could get rid of the primary process, that would be even better. Eliminating the 2 party system would be the end goal.

A lot of the time the president gets the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote, but not always. It directly influences the electoral college, so without it the system wouldn't work at all. It just isn't the main force but rather a component to it.

It absolutely counts when you get to the state level and lower though, which is where citizens should honestly have most of their focus throughout the year but instead know the least about.

If there is a electoral win and popular loss the Electoral loser is now the vice president.

No

We go by states. The votes within the states decide how the state goes. each state is worth a given number of electorates.

The popular vote is just a nationwide count of how everyone voted, so no, under the current system, it has no real meaning. It's just a number.

I find it hard to believe that no one has pointed out the real reason to get rid of the electoral college. The party that has control when districts are drawn is given a substantial unfair advantage in all elections until the districts are redrawn again. This is known as gerrymandering taking it's name from Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. This problem has been going on for some time as this term was coined by the Boston Gazette on March 26th 1812.

The president isn't elected by popular vote, but the figure still has meaning. A candidate that wins the election, but loses the popular vote can't claim a mandate without appearing ridiculous.

Yer dum.
Yes - abolish the tired ass electoral college. Twice in my lifetime it went against the will of the people. also - this is proof that it doesn't protect against charlatans - that is, if they actually vote this fucking shit stain into office.

You whiny libtards fucking make me sick. When the system works for you, you turn around and say "Suck it, we won, get over it". When you lose, ahhh shit, "The system is flawed, we need to change it, so we can win some more". Fuck off!!

That disgusting cunt Clinton was the reason you lost, even with all the media bias in the world you couldn't pull off a win with her.

You realize Dems and Republicans do this right? Its part of the reason we have such a high overall incumbency rate for Reps and Dems.

>Should the electoral college be abolished in favour of a new system? Or should the popular vote independently elect the President?
Fuck no to either.
Giving the big coastal populations in CA and New England exclusive access to political power is fucking absurd.

...

>in all elections
Except for the presidential election, you can't just redraw states to cater to your votes.

And even in a direct democracy gerrymandering is a problem. Electoral college just makes it a little be more efficient.

Oh the irony of your comment. Trump himself said the election was rigged if he lost

No, but before the 1804 the runner up in the presidential election became vice president. This seems like a strange notion now. Personally, I think that such a system almost promotes assassination.

Yeah, I get that, but that might make for really close elections.

Not really M8. It's sort of the same on both sides. If conservatives lost elections & won the popular vote, they'd be throwing a shit fit too.

citations:

>NoBama
>lock her up
etc.

Brah you gotta chill. Have you ever picked up litter?

Lol at people who don't understand math. Such a dumb argument.

It's funny because that's exactly what the EC prevents; fickle changes where the party in power changes the government to suit their specific need at the time.

It's so hilarious and sad at the same time how little people are informed on their own government and it's purposes.

Gerrymandering maps are some of my favs just for how ridiculous they are

...

Are you serious? Conservatives were bitching about the electoral college all the way up to the election, and then they turned around and shut up as soon as Trump won. Hypocrisy at its finest right here

Hey, I voted for Trump because Hilary would be fucking death for our country but I completely agree that the electoral college system should be left behind. Yes, all these whiney crybaby democrats are just making a fuss because their candidate could've won, but It definitely should be the people who decide who leads them, not more leaders of the people.

Other countries don't use this electoral college thing because it fucking sucks ass.
The sooner you realise that every voice counts independantly the sooner you can get the president people actually want.

631,000 dumb ass

I think you meant to say,'what they're supposed to prevent.'

See Popular vote works in a small country with generally similar economic and geographical situations. Some states in the U.S. could qualify as countries. That's why they have the EC you stupid fuck.

>Liberals tell Trump and his supporters to accept the outcome when Hillary inevitably wins
>Trump wins instead
>Liberals refuse to accept the outcome of the exact same election
>The hypocrisy is either completely lost on them or they're mentally ill enough that they don't care
I bet you faggots wouldn't be crying this much if the US was continuing on its path of provoking Russia and destabilizing the Middle East even further.
Pic related, it's you guys after the election.

>> you can't just redraw states to cater to your votes.
I suppose that's true with the exclusion of Maine and Nebraska.

Do you think fucking russia has electoral colleges or china?

>donald dick tastes so good
The trick is in finding it.

Without strict voter ID laws fuck no. Toss out all the illegal, dead voters and she loses by millions.

>Have you ever picked up litter?
Kittens?

Trump literally said that if he lost he wouldn't accept the results.

Both sides are the exact same shit

Do you think things went well in Russia or China when the city tried telling countrymen how to harvest?

Clinton did rig the primaries, had more friends in high positions, and used them to bring nearly the entire weight of the political system and news media down on the Trump campaign and still lost mostly because she is so unappealing. The system was as rigged against him as it could possibly be without an outright fraudulent vote. IIRC there was less turnout on both sides than last election and she still couldn't win, that obviously includes Mittens' utterly abysmal turnout.

Funny because it's exactly why the founding fathers put the system in place. Without the electoral college the north and the west coast would own the political system completely, at that point, why would the south or the heartland even bother to remain in the union? I'm from one of those blue states and even I think it sounds like aids without the electoral system.

>the oppositioon is a hive mind with a singular belief on every issue
Must be nice to live in such a simple world.

I haven't really noticed our core governmental system or the Constitution being influenced heavily over it's existence, so I'd say it's not useless

She really wouldn't have, but this guy stands to divide us more than ever in modern history. Enjoy your victory. Prepare to start rebuilding what he destroys.

...

this is illegal and he can be fined up to 100k dollars with jail time. someone should report him.

>>You realize Dems and Republicans do this right?

You think I know about gerrymandering, but don't know who's doing it? Yes, I know that both of the mainstream political parties both engage in gerrymandering. I live in a 'safe state', so I have no qualms about voting third party.

That isn't connected with the voting system and whatever the system Trump is president now and I just hope he won't start a civil or a nuclear war with noone. Best of luck to you americans and the rest of the world.

As Gore Vidal said, the Republicans and the Democrats are two wings of the same party. Madame First Lady President rigged both primaries so that she might run, for all intents and purposes, unopposed. And she still lost.

...

If a civil war is started it won't be Trump's fault, it's the fault of the populace.

He's literally less likely than Hillary to ever start an international conflict.

Yes popular vote for all. If you don't live in a big city your life doesn't matter anyway so you don't deserve and representation

Sounds a little bit like a governor

"Vote early and often."
–Tammany Hall

THIS

/thread

Well his idea with building a wall is already begging conflicts with mexico.

EC isn't going anywhere, it would require a constitutional amendment which is a pain to do even with a united congress.

Anyway, I think this is hilarious; the left lost the election because they were ignoring middle america, and their solution to this is to get rid of the only thing that makes them even pretend to give a shit about what the flyover states think.

Way to not learn anything from what happened on Tuesday, guys.

Abolish the electoral college system after Trump becomes President.

Either go with a strictly popular vote election or redraw the districts and assign a vote on a district by district basis, instead of a state-by-state basis.

There's something to be said about getting rid of the current system when the last 2 republican presidents were elected with a minority vote.

And before you herp derp about W winning easily in 2004, keep in mind that I said that they were elected in with a minority vote. I said nothing about them keeping the job.

Conceivably, we could've had Clinton, Gore, Obama, Clinton for 28 years.

But yeah, you don't change the rules before the award ceremony just because you lost. That's some Dumbledore giving Gryffindor the House Cup shit right there.

It doesn't do what it's supposed to do which is protect rural, small states, & protect the office of prez from charlatans. The constitution is a living document & can be amended. Soooo... Fuck the EC.

Average libtard here, everyone.

America is so big that the electoral college system is not such a bad idea. The electoral college was created was to ensure no single region of the US could dominate, such as the North out-voting the South along old Civil War lines, for example.

If it was abolished would that scenario be any fairer than EC.

tldr: No system would be 100% perfect.

No, literally he did not. Literally he did not answer the question. Then literally he said he'd accept the results if he wins.

And you, sir, are a literal moron. Literally.

nope

because 65 other countries have walls?

donald is in favor of abolishing the electoral college

The electoral college exists to prevent electoral tyranny.. which is what caused the fall of another former republic - Rome.

So.. what you're saying is you're OK with tyranny.. and you vote democrat.

Why does this not surprise me?

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here, ya dingus. First of all, I never referred to them as the "opposition". I'm not conservative or liberal, I'm pretty well in the middle. Second, I didn't say conservatives are a hive mind. That's not what I was getting at. But there were a lot of them vocally complaining about the electoral college before election night. And I do agree, if we're going to have it, something needs to change. It shouldn't conflict with popular vote, no matter which side popular vote is favoring.

Also, did you even read the post I was quoting? Your little comeback applies a lot more to that statement than mine. Those types of conservatives are all over Sup Forums and they are the definition of an anti-opposition hivemind

>completely ignores the intention and most of the content of my post
>reads "I voted for Trump"
>reads "Clinton is death"
>responds as an angry Democrat would
>meh meh meh country is ruined I'm leaving

crybaby spotted

see
>whiny

/thread