Electoral College

Why does this even exist? It flies in the face of democracy, really. Shouldn't the decision lie entirely in the people's vote. Isn't that more democratic?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Democracy is mob rule.
We're a republic not a democracy.

Because the founding fathers were all >muh states

and as a result, they made a system where each state gets a certain amount of electoral power, and each state could determine its electors for the presidency however the hell they felt like. The states eventually agreed (more or less) on a winner-take-all system following a first-past-the-post popular vote at the state level.

Part of the problem in reforming the system is that if any individual state changes their system without getting most of the other states on board to change theirs at the same time, it fundamentally alters the balance of power in federal elections in a way that could be detrimental to the interests of the majority of voters in the state in question - it's a prisoner's dilemma.

...

Ah yes, it is better to let the minority decide than the majority.

it works in our benefit, a majority would let california and new york control the country. for anyone who is curious electors are selected by whoever wins the popular vote in a state and are heavily screened, there has only been one faithless elector and that was in 1988 i believe. so trump winning texas gives him 38 electors to choose who then get together to vote in December, the nov. 9 winner has never been changed because most electors vote for who they say they will.

We're a democratic republic. Our system is a compromise between the majority, and the individual; between the federal and the states

> majority would let California and New York control the country
no retard, the electoral college disenfranchises the millions of Republicans living in CA.

but majority of the population is in places like LA. It would be worst if everyone had a system like maine and nebraska were the electoral districts were gerrymandered for blacks or hispanics only.

We aren't a democratic republic.

the entire system would work better if there were term limits on all government offices and no individual was allowed to vote without paying taxes

what about some college students? i know that sounds like a bad example bc libruls but just bc they aren't working at the time of election doesn't mean they haven't worked before for long periods of time.

What makes you think there shouldn't be checks on the will of the people?

>It flies in the face of democracy, really.
that's exactly the point

Well, you don't want democracy to be in the hands of 'the people' - imagine what might happen!

yes it seems to be only partially proportional. California has a population about 66 times that of Wyoming. The Electoral college ratio is about 18 (55 vs 3). those low population red states are advantaged in the electoral college. so too are the small blue states in the east. I can only think of 2000 (Bush) when the elected president did not get the overall popular vote. Are there any other examples?

1876

>implying the us isn't an oligarchy or kleptocracy

This problem could easily be solved with more equal states, because some states are more equal than others.

>ITT we try to rationalize why the electoral college, which is undemocratic and benefits smaller states disproportionately, is somehow better for American democracy

Because England's "checks on the will of the people" was what started the American Revolution?

Its a great balance of power mechanic, its just that its fallen to the same old dichotomy of U.S. elections of Cities vs Countryside. In my mind, it would be perfect if New York city was its own state, and if L.A. was its own state. Not sure about other cities though, I just know these two have too much swaying power for their state's own good.

It exists because the founding fathers didn't trust us and the only states back then were tiny fag ones that wanted more power and control

Now its too hard to remove. The closest we got was in the 70s but some cunt republican filibustered till it died

Holy shit you're a fucking idiot.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The end of the Electoral College is closer than you think.

if college wasn't government funded bullshit maybe

but really, no

We are a republic, fool.
We balance the rights of the people, house of reps, with the rights of states, senate.

Good. Democracy is shit.

the electoral college is the only thing stopping us from being a one party country. if anything it doesn't give enough representation to small states. in 1788 the largest state had 9 more electors than the smallest state. in 2016 the largest state has 63 more electors than the smallest state.

> one party country
you assume we aren't that already

It's actually rigged in favor of small states.

if you go back to the days of the early Republic, the presidency wasn't super important.

The Framers were literally like "fuck it, this isn't something the public should be too concerned about "

You idiots need to stop shitting on the most historically successful system of government we've ever come up with.

No, it does not work perfectly all of the fucking time.

No, fascist dictatorships, communist dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies, and absolute monarchies do not work any better. Typically they perform worse.

Sources: fifteen minutes looking through any history book and a ten-second glance at a map.

unbelievable. excellent

>we haven't got tremendously fucked up by it, so it must be perfect!
just because something that has flaws is better than the radical alternative doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved

It has been improved numerous times. Removing the electoral college would not be an improvement. It would be removing a necessary feature that allows a small group of influential people to check the will of the people.

People living in agrarian low-population states are "influential" only because the electoral college gives them so much fucking control. They're not nearly as smart or coordinated as a proper oligarchy.

No, I agree. I'm defending democracy (well, republicanism) in general, not the Electoral College. The Electoral College can go fuck itself. I'm not going to defend our archaic voting system at all.

I'm just tired of the "fuck democracy!" meme that's been circulating on Sup Forums lately.

They don't need to be particularly smart or coordinated to make one decision every four years. It's not meant to be a ruling body just a gut check to make sure the candidate isn't someone outrageous.

The problem with electoral college is that it's theoretically possible to win the election with 22% of population voting for you and 78% voting for the other guy. It's strictly worse than deciding who wins by popular vote. And gerrymandering has no relation to deciding president by popular vote.

Electoral college is good. It'd be better if similar things were done all the way down, like with mini-EC for counties and such, scale-invariance is an interesting property and has a certain kind of consistency to it that merely proportional systems lack. As it is one major city can fuck a whole state over. I wish people thought of that in the beginning.

Next country, let's do that.

Agreed.

What the fuck do you mean, gut check?
What makes you think a bunch of rural voters would prevent an "outrageous" candidate from being elected by the same standards as you?

>electoral college gives them so much fucking control
Nah. They have the fewest electoral votes.

it's theoretically possible to win with just one vote no matter the system

Fewer votes, greater power. If you're in a rural state, your vote has more influence on the election than a more populous state.

Better to have random undecided idiots in arbitrary swing states decide the presidency then?

You live in a world where "Hitler did nothing wrong" can win an online popularity contest and the population that thinks that kind of thing is funny will be the majority of voters in your lifetime.

It's nice to have a mechanism in place to avoid shit like that.

Only 23% of CA's votes came from LA.

That is not a majority.

NY is a way better example

voting red in upstate is a uphill battle

No, with popular vote, you don't win if there are two people running and you don't have the majority.

The electoral college was literally put into place in order to stop literal retards like Trump supporters voting for a literal retard like Trump.

This election is why it exists.

>It flies in the face of democracy,
We're not a fucking democracy.We're a fucking Constitutional Republic.
Thanks to one of the presidents calling the United States a Democracy,other political figures started doing the same then people started saying it,and it's taught in schools.Other presidents,and political figure heads now constantly to make sure to call the United States of America a Democracy.
>If I remember correctly,it was Woodrow Wilson whom first called the United States a Democracy,instead of a Republic.

Ideally it's like the States voting, instead of the people as a whole.

49th post best post

>founding fathers
I think you mean Alexander "I hate all my friends" Hamilton

(I'm probably wrong on this I've had a long day)

But the electoral college gives Trump voters a better shot at getting Trump elected.

This right here, and Woodrow Wilson was a cunt.

We have not been a Republic since that faggot Lincoln.

>As it is one major city can fuck a whole state over
In what way?

fpbp

if you didn't have the electoral college, then huge urban centers (LA, NY city, Chicago, Atlanta etc. ) would decide who would be president and therefore would decide American domestic and foreign policy. You would have even less statehood than do now. Ppl in rural areas and even urban areas with smaller populations would be more screwed than they are now. You would also probably have a President and congress that would be totally at odds with most of the country who made policy that only benefited those huge cities and the congressmen that represented those cities.

>Why does this even exist? It flies in the face of democracy, really.

You answered your own question. The electoral college was put in place specifically as a check to democracy (just like house seats which are allocated by population vs. the two senators that every state gets)

The idea was that smaller states shouldn't have their interests completely sidelined by bigger states or pushed into irrelevance. The founders were actually not huge fans of absolute democracy.

Popular vote would disenfranchise anyone who isn't at the coast. There is no reason to campaign in low population areas versus the high density populations of states near water.

Take a look at this map. There is zero reason to campaign anywhere that isn't a gigantic red spike.

I prefer people closer to nature and away from cities and Jews to hold more political power than Democratic welfare cities yes. But maybe that's personal preference.

That's not true though, Illinois is entirely red if not for Chicago. This means voting republican in Illinois is a waste of time; if there is going to be an electoral college the votes should be given out proportionately based on the votes in the state.

This, also if your on gubment benefits you shouldn't get a vote. Your whole life is a conflict of interest where you'll vote for your benefits and give zero shits for the US as a whole.

I don't agree with term limits. Just vote them out.

I do agree with contributions through taxes though. Why are people who don't invest in the system have a large enough say to change the system in their favor when they do nothing for it outside of getting certain people in power?

It would be racis. We can't even get voter ID in all states because it's racis. Can't be bothered to leave my porch.

Actually, it is. We are a constitutional Republic. Imagine if the Constitution could be altered by referendum at any time. Imagine the retarded laws we'd have in our founding document, imagine the instability that would cause. That is why we have a balanced republican government that separates the political power into various branches and estates, instead of pooling it all in one like a pure democracy or pure dictatorship would. It's all about stability and preventing tyranny.