Leaving the Union

[P.PattersonISwalkingthruthatdoor]

the Founders knew what they were doing when they crafted the EC. does it have some drawbacks? Sure, but it has a lot of benefits.

If this were a parliamentary system, it'd be different.

 

[vhcat70]

Can anyone think of another way to elect a president that makes more sense than the electoral college.

ME & NE do it the right way: A candidate who wins a congressional district gets its electoral vote & the overall state winner gets their Senators 2 votes. I.e., you can win ME & NE 3-1 vs. just 4-0. For KY, the Dems would win the LV Congressional District & maybe another like Lex so KY's electoral votes would go 7-1 or 6-2 vs. 8-0 Pub. If every state did this, then candidates would have to campaign in every close district (435) vs. just close states. Hell, Trump would win like 10 of CA's 55. This is much closer to a popular vote election than today.

 

[mashburned]

Maybe the problem is that minoritiy groups feel so unrepresented and even hated by one party and/or its members that they vote almost exclusively one way. Fix that instead of complaining that "they" decide the winner.

You don't realize what you just said is racist af and that's hilarious.

 

[sefleming]

All a candidate needs to do to win is win the top 11 states with the highest electoral votes that person can win the lection. Bottom line they can win 11 states and lose the other 39 and can still win the election.

 

[mashburned]

^ And that wouldn't necessarily be a problem if there was more separation between state and fed.

 

[joeyrupption]

IIRC, OP already left the union to reside in some god-forsaken ******** third world country.

So this thread is just his attempt to eek out some validation due a special circumstance to make himself feel better about not being able to hack it as a productive citizen in the U.S. of A.

These colors don't run.

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,

:americanflag:

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

Why in the hell would they stop voting for people that keep promising them something for nothing?

That's how California got turned blue.

How can you keep your Republican stance while agreeing to give handouts to a bunch of government dependent people?

 

[UKGrad93]

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

I'll take your response as a NO.

I can answer the question, but it is clear that you wouldn't understand.

 

[BlueVelvetFog]

I thought this was about the Teamsters

 

[mrhotdice]

IIRC, OP already left the union to reside in some god-forsaken ******** third world country.

So this thread is just his attempt to eek out some validation due a special circumstance to make himself feel better about not being able to hack it as a productive citizen in the U.S. of A.

These colors don't run.

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,

:americanflag:

I beg to differ. Anyone who calls Taiwan a third world country should not be allowed to vote because he's to stupid to ever get it right. Maybe he thinks Taiwan is in China or the Philippines. Haha

 

[joeyrupption]

Story checks out.

 

[BoNicholas]

If voting was mandatory you might as well disband the Republican Party.

 

[Ahnan E. Muss]

I beg to differ. Anyone who calls Taiwan a third world country should not be allowed to vote because he's to stupid to ever get it right. Maybe he thinks Taiwan is in China or the Philippines. Haha

Yeah Joey, your a idiot.

 

[Tskware]

ME & NE do it the right way: A candidate who wins a congressional district gets its electoral vote & the overall state winner gets their Senators 2 votes. I.e., you can win ME & NE 3-1 vs. just 4-0. For KY, the Dems would win the LV Congressional District & maybe another like Lex so KY's electoral votes would go 7-1 or 6-2 vs. 8-0 Pub. If every state did this, then candidates would have to campaign in every close district (435) vs. just close states. Hell, Trump would win like 10 of CA's 55. This is much closer to a popular vote election than today.

I think I read (could be wrong) that they have gone back a long time and that system, while making perfect sense, would not have changed a single presidential election in over a century. IF that is true, then what is the point of changing the present system?

 

[Midway Cat]

All a candidate needs to do to win is win the top 11 states with the highest electoral votes that person can win the lection. Bottom line they can win 11 states and lose the other 39 and can still win the election.

To be fair, those eleven states contain 188,107,038 people, which is nearly 59% of the total US population (318.9 million in 2014).

The Electoral College seems skewed, but when you actually look at the numbers, it's surprisingly representative. In fact, smaller states actually have disproportionate voting power in the EC because they're given at least three votes when a truly representative system might call for less.

In other words, if you're a Republican, it's probably best to keep your mouth shut about the Electoral College and continue to reap the rewards. After all, two of the last three GOP victories in presidential elections occurred when they lost the popular vote but still won the EC (2000, 2016).

 

[Hank Camacho]

IIRC, OP already left the union to reside in some god-forsaken ******** third world country.

So this thread is just his attempt to eek out some validation due a special circumstance to make himself feel better about not being able to hack it as a productive citizen in the U.S. of A.

These colors don't run.

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,

:americanflag:

[banana]

 

[TortElvisII]

Some of you do not understand we are a union of states. It may become more clear in next 4 years. The founders were brilliant.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

To be fair, those eleven states contain 188,107,038 people, which is nearly 59% of the total US population (318.9 million in 2014).

The Electoral College seems skewed, but when you actually look at the numbers, it's surprisingly representative. In fact, smaller states actually have disproportionate voting power in the EC because they're given at least three votes when a truly representative system might call for less.

In other words, if you're a Republican, it's probably best to keep your mouth shut about the Electoral College and continue to reap the rewards. After all, two of the last three GOP victories in presidential elections occurred when they lost the popular vote but still won the EC (2000, 2016).

The electoral college was never meant to be representative of the population. It is meant to be a hybrid system, where there is weighting based on population and a weighting based on states. We are a collection of sovereign states. It would make no sense for a sovereign state with a small population to agree to system of electing a President based on population.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Some of you do not understand we are a union of states. It may become more clear in next 4 years. The founders were brilliant.

Sole exception: when your team loses.

 

[Goingfor9]

We are no democracy we are a republic. The constitution would have to be scrapped to do it any other way.

 

[Midway Cat]

The electoral college was never meant to be representative of the population. It is meant to be a hybrid system, where there is weighting based on population and a weighting based on states. We are a collection of sovereign states. It would make no sense for a sovereign state with a small population to agree to system of electing a President based on population.

I'm not sure if this was intended as a critique, but I completely agree. The Electoral College gives smaller states disproportionate power in Presidential elections relative to population. That's why it was incorporated in the first place. The less-populated "sovereign states" wanted to ensure they had at least some say in selecting the chief executive.

My original point was just that it's surprising how closely the EC tracks voting based on population. People who complain that it's wildly disproportionate aren't looking closely at the numbers. It just so happens that we've had two extremely close elections in the last five where the EC carried the day. Even then, it's not like there was a massive gap between popular and EC vote totals.

There are valid reasons for the EC. If it didn't exist, I truly believe that our country would've fallen apart a long time ago.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I'm not sure if this was intended as a critique, but I completely agree. The Electoral College gives smaller states disproportionate power in Presidential elections relative to population. That's why it was incorporated in the first place. The less-populated "sovereign states" wanted to ensure they had at least some say in selecting the chief executive.

My original point was just that it's surprising how closely the EC tracks voting based on population. People who complain that it's wildly disproportionate aren't looking closely at the numbers. It just so happens that we've had two extremely close elections in the last five where the EC carried the day. Even then, it's not like there was a massive gap between popular and EC vote totals.

There are valid reasons for the EC. If it didn't exist, I truly believe that our country would've fallen apart a long time ago.

I think I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I thought you were implying that it was supposed to be reflective of the population and that if it were reestablished it would move toward popular vote.

 

[Ukbrassowtipin]

This doesn't make any sense. 1 person has one say. Who cares where they live. If we didn't have a Congress, I could see sticking with the electoral college, but there's absolutely no reason for it.
The electoral
There's a reason why presidential candidates don't campaign in Kentucky. Our vote doesn't mean jack. Our voice doesn't mean jack. Basically Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a few other states are deciding every single presidential election these days. If you think 3-5 states deciding who's the president on a yearly basis isn't a broken system, then maybe you are what the OP was referring to with the subject "Leaving the Union."

The electoral college exists because new Yorkers and people in California have different things facing their life than the south for instance. If they didn't have the electoral college different ways of thinking wouldn't be represented as high populations like new York and California would decide every single election. It would segregate thinking.

 

[MrLair]

Wtf mods. Do your dam job. Political thread please.

Ban everyone in this stupid argument.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

The electoral college exists because new Yorkers and people in California have different things facing their life than the south for instance. If they didn't have the electoral college different ways of thinking wouldn't be represented as high populations like new York and California would decide every single election. It would segregate thinking.

The electoral college was established long before California was a state.

 

[warrior-cat]

IIRC, OP already left the union to reside in some god-forsaken ******** third world country.

So this thread is just his attempt to eek out some validation due a special circumstance to make himself feel better about not being able to hack it as a productive citizen in the U.S. of A.

These colors don't run.

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A,

:americanflag:

Like to go on record that I liked this one a thousand times. I love this country no matter who is in charge and will not leave her and will fight to keep her FREE. If you want to leave....WELL, BYE.

 

[rmattox]

Maybe the problem is that minoritiy groups feel so unrepresented and even hated by one party and/or its members that they vote almost exclusively one way. Fix that instead of complaining that "they" decide the winner.

If minority groups feel particularly hated by the Repubs, it's due to: 1. Their own insecurities and/or 2) Lack of knowledge of what most of us Repubs truly hate: programs that keep minorities down and dependent upon a party the doesn't give a rat's arse about anything other than their vote.

 

[Deeeefense]

yeah, several countries do this and it should be considered here. It's a shame that just over half of the voting population votes. We should really have 80-85% voting rate, considering we're supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.

IMO the reason nearly half the population doesn't turn out to vote, is what has already been discussed herein. The election boils down to about a half dozen swing states, primarily Florida and Ohio. So if you are a Dem living in Texas or a Pub living in California, there is no motivation to go to the polls as the outcome has already been predetermined.

State legislatures have the authority to proportion their electoral votes anyway they want. Most go with "winner takes all" but a couple proportion it out. If more states did that more people would turn out and the elections would be fairer as it would take away all the power from those few swing states.