Is there any logical reason for why the current electoral college is designed the way it is? Why is geographical population density given so much weight? Why not just use population without the density, or even just not allow any one region to have more than 10 votes (ie break down Cali/Fl/NY etc into smaller electorates). Or better yet just elect the person with the most votes!
Nobody can legitimately argue that the current system doesn't favour whoever the more densely populated states are trending towards.
Pic related is what an actual fair election might look like. Notice how every region has an equal weighting and the same population.
People would complain and call this gerrymandering, which it is. Of course, it it helps us then there's nothing wrong with it
Nathaniel Jenkins
>trying to gerrymander the country further Dumbass. Go read a fucking book about WHY the electoral college was created as it was back in the 1700s.
The population (unwashed masses) do NOT elect the president. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The STATES elect the President.
Dominic Harris
>Is there any logical reason for why the current electoral college is designed the way it is?
It's in the US Constitution.
Gabriel Carter
>elect the person with the most votes Would have been nice if that was the case, Al Gore would have won in 2000.
Brody Williams
There's also the Senate/Congress system where each state does have the same number of participants. That's the ones making laws.
Anthony Phillips
it should be >1 electoral vote (representatives) per district >2 electoral votes (senators) for winning the state
Juan Rogers
It's not gerrymandering when it's making it farer. You can't make it skewed as fuck then call it gerrymandering when people try to fix it.
Caleb Stewart
That could cause problems because then candidates would only focus on major cities / states by creating policies that only benefit those areas
Gavin Butler
Would be terrible for Republicans. They would just run up the score in urban centers and blow us out every election.
Luke Cook
>That could cause problems because then candidates would only focus on major cities / states by creating policies that only benefit those areas >Implying the Democrats don't already do this with the big cities while neglecting countryside America
Daniel Evans
First of all, you don't even understand what the system that's in place is trying to accomplish.
Second, if you do this then you have to KEEP redrawing the districts to keep it "fair". And who defines fair? A bipartisan council of some kind? What about the Libertarian and Green parties?
The electoral college system has a LOT of thought behind it. Read a book.
Elijah Gonzalez
Whoops. This was meant for
Jordan Cox
>Is there any logical reason for why the current electoral college is designed the way it is?
Yes. Learn how to read a book sometime, you illiterate faggot.
The USA is a federation. The governments of the people are the state and local governments. The federal government is the government of the states.
Carson Gonzalez
I'm sure. It's just that it doesn't seem to help anyone but the guys who actually get to vote.
Oliver Ross
Or. And this is just a crazy though. Just count the votes of all people and whichever candidate has the most wins so every vote is truly equal and the most popular candidate wins.
John Foster
>cities don't matter much in elections
u avin a giggle m8?
NY, California, Illinois, hell every state would be solid red if it weren't for the cities.
Blake Powell
No more FED.
Caleb Morris
We are a Republic. States have rights too.
Nathaniel Edwards
United STATES of American. Each State gets to pick who they want to be president.
I've also heard that if it's just done by popular vote, a candidate could just campaign in the big cities of either coast and disregard the interests of flyovers states which have more gun owners, farmers, etc than a typical big city.
Cooper Rivera
>or even just not allow any one region to have more than 10 votes Or we could just make electoral votes proportionate. The problem is that many states do the winner-take-all bullshit, white gives huge adavantages to dems because of CA being 55 electoral votes.
Landon Allen
>I'm sure. It's just that it doesn't seem to help anyone but the guys who actually get to vote.
That's because of this swing state nonsense and changes in how electors are chosen now compared to how the system originally was.
Liam Reed
who gets the right to vote? because wont non taxpayers just keep voting for more and more of the taxpayers toil and sweat?
Camden Sullivan
because California needs to be a winner-take-all so that the democrats can stay relevant
Adam Bailey
>Is there any logical reason for why the current electoral college is designed the way it is? It's called having states and states rights and sovereignty.
Dylan Mitchell
Yeah it'd sure be nice if only white male landowners could vote.
OH WAIT
Aaron Roberts
>Nobody can legitimately argue that the current system doesn't favour whoever the more densely populated states are trending towards. why is it a bad thing to favor the person who has more people voting for them in an election
Ian Miller
It is a democracy. Every adult citizen has the right to vote.
>Why not just use population without the density So the lower population states still have a say. I think you'll find places like Cali/NY have a lower population:delegates ratio than smaller states.
Jordan Watson
Who would win the Presidency if this was the electoral map?
Eli Peterson
You say that as if it isn't already that way.
Women get to vote and most of them don't actually net contribute to taxes
Evan Johnson
Ill take what is Pennsylvania for 600
Lincoln Thomas
>American education.
A republic is a democratic state.
Ryder Baker
A lot of you Americans are missing the point.
The point is that 100% of the state's votes go to one party. It's insane that 100% of California's votes go to one candidate when almost half of the population of that state are voting for the other candidate. Yet meanwhile middle America is broken down into tiny electorates so it's spread between the candidates. Basically whoever California votes for will probably win most of the time even though they're only 10% of the population. I understand that it's in your constitution but yeah that was like 300 years ago
Colton Adams
Absolutely this. In NZ the government ignores everything outside of our largest city Auckland which makes up 40% of NZ's population because of popular vote. Keep electoral college, popular vote is a fucking disaster if you're right wing. Government caters to big city cucks with popular vote.
Caleb Green
Republicans in this election. Easily
Blake Russell
>The State of Detroit top kek
Jeremiah Sanders
>German education There's nothing about a republic that necessitates a democracy of any kind, read a book.
Dylan Collins
Redrawing is nesscecary because districts are based on population and population shifts that beingoes said we are in desperate need of reforms to prevent gerrymandering from every party
Ayden Roberts
The only time in recent history where the popular vote winner wasn't the EV winner was 2000. The system is mostly just for tradition.
Jeremiah Roberts
What you want to argue is for California to split up into several smaller states. Not against a system you don't understand.
USA is a UNION of STATES, and the federal government is chosen by the STATES and the PEOPLE. The STATES elect the President and the Senate, the PEOPLE elect the House of Representatives.
Angel Price
>There's nothing about a republic that necessitates a democracy
republic:
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
democracy:
noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Republic is a form of state Democracy is a for of government.
In any case the US is both a democratic state and a republic because these things literally mean the same.
Jose Jones
It's literally impossible to prevent gerrymandering, no matter how you reform it.
Ryan Baker
>What you want to argue is for California to split up into several smaller states. Aren't they trying to do that? The non-libshit areas want to leave.
Asher Anderson
Especially when you consider about a third of cali is republican who get tucked in the assignment every general election
Luis Reyes
I always thought that the US was a democratic republic.
Gabriel Foster
Yeah but historically US elections have never really been close. When they're close is when the college system fails.
Jonathan Barnes
>Avocexit 2017
Josiah Walker
>In any case the US is both a democratic state and a republic because these things literally mean the same.
Yeah you clearly need to work on your English.
Ryan Price
Yeah, the fact that you even CAN win with only a bit over 20% votes on you is unacceptable in my eyes.
Samuel Wilson
>Go read a fucking book about WHY the electoral college was created as it was back in the 1700s. Because communication was impossible so people selected electors to go and make informed choices for them. Which might have lasted all of a single election until it became simply party line voting.
~
Anyway the solution is to convert every state to proportional representation. No more swing state bribes no more ignoring sure bet states.
Jace Campbell
A republic is by definition always a democratic state.
>Yeah you clearly need to work on your English. Nice argument. Also what is wrong with that sentence?
Carson Baker
t. 56%
Thomas Price
At the end of the day the electoral college is not about finding the candidate that mist people like but rather the candidate the widest variety of people like
Landon Rodriguez
>democratic state and a republic because these things literally mean the same. No, Australia is a Democratic state but not a republic. Your definition is poor.
Gabriel Foster
oh, okay. Thanks Germy
Zachary Adams
>USA is a republic, German. Correct it doesn't have a monarchy.
Which has what to do with the fact that the USA is a democracy?
Andrew Peterson
Yes they are.
It is a democratic republic. It is NOT a "democracy".
Republic = government by representatives. It is not required that they be chosen democratically. For example, if the representatives were all monarchs, that would still be a republic.
USA is a "democratic republic" because the representatives are chosen democratically. There's a reason it's called the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and not a parliament. It's a "congress" because the HOR and the Senate work together to pass legislation, which is approved by the President.
Nathan Carter
This. We would be a better country without amendments 15-17. wrong a republic requires representative leadership a leader does not have to democratically elected to be representative
John Scott
Good job kraut
Colton Long
The electoral college is fine with just some tweaks. This will improve things more than a direct first-past-the-post method, which is complete shit.
1. Divide states electoral college votes in a way proportional to the parties that got votes instead of winner-take-all. If Trump gets 35% of the votes in California, he should get 35% of the electoral votes.
2. Tie electoral college voters to the party, not to the candidate. If McMullin wins Utah and cockblocks both parties from receiving a majority of votes, it's up to McMullin's party (in this case McMullin himself) to determine who becomes president.
3. Don't allow states to create high thresholds for parties to participate in debates, get on the ballot, or receive electoral college votes. The Dems and GOP will work very hard to cockblock third parties if we let them.
All this combined means third parties can participate and have their voice heard.
Liam Brooks
>A republic is by definition always a democratic state. Not always.
Lets say you had a military dictatorship that passed rule to the next most senior general.
So long as the head of state isn't a monarchy or equivalent it's a republic.
Lincoln Roberts
>Republic = government by representatives.
False. Republic = No monarchy.
Nathaniel Hernandez
>A republic is by definition always a democratic state. Wrong.
ITT >bawwwwwww it's so hard for my meme magic candidate to win make it easier
Anthony Bailey
>It's a "congress" because the HOR and the Senate work together to pass legislation, which is approved by the President.
In what way is that different to Canada? It has a Parliament that works with their Senate to pass laws that are then approved by the Governor General. Unless all three agree no law is passed.
Lincoln Green
It actually favors less-densely populated areas. Its done by state, not area and each state is guaranteed a minimum of 3 electors. to get 4 electors a state needs roughly double the population of a 3-elector state
Jaxon Butler
Okay. You are right there a republic does not necessitate a democracy but still the USA both a republic and a democracy.
William Wright
1. It's up to the States how they apportion their electoral college votes. They're free to use them as they see fit.
2. USA is not even supposed to have political parties, that's a terrible idea.
3. Again it's up to the individual states to decide how they want to carry out their elections. That's the whole point. The state's have the power so you can have more influence. If you want to change how your state runs things, run for office or campaign.
Angel Phillips
We have a democratic republic. The representitives are elected by democracy, the laws are handled by the republic.
Jaxon Edwards
>the laws are handled by the republic.
What does that mean?
Owen Miller
It's a democratic republic. NOT A DEMOCRACY.
This distinction is pretty fucking important German so either try really hard to understand it or shut the fuck up and import more refugees.
Kayden Stewart
>1. Divide states electoral college votes in a way proportional to the parties that got votes instead of winner-take-all. If Trump gets 35% of the votes in California, he should get 35% of the electoral votes. Then there is literally no reason to have the EC. Which exists to give the states a vote. For the exact same reason that senators are supposed to be appointed by the state legislatures. >2. Tie electoral college voters to the party, not to the candidate. If McMullin wins Utah and cockblocks both parties from receiving a majority of votes, it's up to McMullin's party (in this case McMullin himself) to determine who becomes president. pedantic. The parties should figure stupid shit out like this themselves. >3. Don't allow states to create high thresholds for parties to participate in debates, get on the ballot, or receive electoral college votes. The Dems and GOP will work very hard to cockblock third parties if we let them. Fair
Aiden Rivera
It's a republic and a democracy.
Michael Rivera
Actually going back to point 2, the Constitution already makes it clear that if no candidate gets the required amount of electoral college votes, the HOR determines the next president. There's no need for your second point at all if you'd just read the Constitution.
Easton Nelson
I hate it, but I don't want people fucking with the constitution. Leave it alone.
Benjamin Ortiz
>and a democracy. When's the last time you got a direct vote on federal legislation or appointments?
NOT A DEMOCRACY. It's a democratic republic.
Oliver Stewart
democracy refers to the type of government. "Deomcracy is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament."
You are living in a republic which is governed democratic.
Also the USA is a "Federal presidential constitutional republic".
Isaac Baker
How does this system strike you?
Carter Scott
I'm saying the federal government needs to step in and force them to change. No state or party is going to change things because it works against them to do so. If California suddenly started handing 20 delegates to the GOP every 4 years, Hillary wouldn't even be in this race at all for example. The California legislature would never approve it.
The parties rule is specifically to force third parties to be viable. Two parties is terrible, 10 parties is much better.
Juan Lopez
It's linear with state population+2. This was done to give more power to the smaller states because America was supposed to be run like a federation originally.
I think we can tell what politicial side they are on.
Landon Jones
It should be elect the person with the most votes.
That's the only way for every person's vote to matter the same.
Jacob Ortiz
The parties are obviously going to work things out in their favor at the expense of people who support different ideologies than the party. If I was a socialist, I could write-in Bernie Sanders, but then I've really just wasted my vote, now haven't I?
The constitution is not a magic thing that should never be changed. If there's a flaw in the system, you're supposed to fix it. Quit being retarded.
Josiah Edwards
Local elections are held democratically. That is it. We should be less democratic than we are because democracy is a bait and switch. Vote on which way you want to be killed, gallows or gas chamber.
Originally senators were appointed by the states, not the people of the states.
Dividing the power up locally so that the federal government never becomes as powerful as it is now makes national elections worth much less.
Trying to map this system to national direct democracy is rife with issues and that is where we are today. People wanted more power at the national level so they decided to let people vote at the national level to make them feel like they can actually change anything.
Thomas Powell
that's literally what this is.
It seems everyone is sobering up to the fact drumpf is going to lose and is making excuses before it happens
Ayden Ross
>When's the last time you got a direct vote on federal legislation or appointments? >NOT A DEMOCRACY. It's a democratic republic.
Not every democracy is a direct democracy. When was the last time you had the option to vote for a representative? If they answer is ever then your in a democracy.
The only government form that allows people to select representatives is a democracy. If you select a representative you are in a democracy.
If you have no monarchy (or it's equal) you are a republic.
Robert White
>The California legislature would never approve it. They would if they wanted it. Which raises a good question: why haven't republicans in the state campaigned for proportional division of electoral college votes?
There's no need for the federal government to fuck with state governments unless something literally violates the constitution. Not because it bothers your feelings.
That's local geography, brit.
Jordan Flores
>What is the logic? >Muh constitution
fucking burgers
This is a common criticism, but it's not really true. The US population distribution is very wide. Look at a list of top US cities--you have to get really far down before you would get over half of the population. Even if you decide all of the rural population can go to hell, that's %20 of the voters that you've lost. It's a common criticism, but it's not really true.
Compare that to the Electoral College where you can in theory win a two-candidate race with ridiculously low popular support if you get votes from states that are weighted relatively heavily (because of their low population), I think CGP grey figured it at like %19 or something. Even worse, with more than two candidates, the entire system falls apart--partially because of the tie breaking procedure (remember, it's not impossible McMuffin is the next president), and partially because as more candidates enter, you need less and less of a consensus and support to get the highest number of electoral votes.
This is closer to the truth. The entire point of the system, as was mentioned, isn't to represent the will of the people fairly, but to represent the will of the states. The system is explicitly unfair to larger states, as encouragement for small states to join the Union without feeling they're submitting to the greater power. On an ideological level, the question isn't whether or not the electoral college is a fair way to represent the people (it isn't and isn't meant to be), but whether or not it even makes sense to maintain state sovereignty in modern society. I don't think so; the US is functionally a single state, and the vestiges of federalism hold our country back. Basing our political control on geography allows settled in power to decide too many issues on its own, and denies votes to too many--even if you ignore the presidential race
Angel Ortiz
The problem is we shouldnt be expecting to elect a president who is going to change anything. The president should be simply the best administrator for the job, the shouldn't be setting the political direction of a population of 300 million.
People need the power to make changes locally so if a town wants to elect a socialist they can go right ahead and it doesn't have to effect anyone else.
Juan Rivera
Because we're a federation of states and each state needs a voice on who holds the executive office.
Jose Murphy
It's the people who should elect their president. It's sort of the whole thing with democracy. Why not just count each induvidual vote? At the current state, Republicans in California should feel pretty discouraged to vote because they know that their state will turn out as a guaranteed win for the Democrats either way. The 2000 Bush-Gore election is the prime example that really shows how undemocratic your system is. Gore got half a million more votes overall but Bush still won because muh electoral votes.
Julian Nguyen
To do that you would have to get one vote above a tie in half or some special combination of states and then get no votes in the rest or something like that.
A Jeb surge is more likely.
And that's just if there's only 2 frontrunner candidates. With multiple candidates with a good chance of winning 20% doesn't sound as bad.
Adrian White
Why does a state that has 800,000 people have an equal say to one with 30,000,000?
Surely the system is rigged for tiny East Coast states, against larger Western ones.
If it's about States should Texas be able to subdivide and make 20 more states?
Carter Kelly
Read up on the tyranny of 51%...
Oh and get Abdul cock out of your mouth before you start
