- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is the argument for the electoral college instead of a popular vote?
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:39 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:39 am
I am not saying there isn't a good one, I just have never really had this conversation with anyone that has given me a good one.
If the electoral votes are weighted by population anyway, what's the point of making someone's red/blue vote not count in a state that leans heavily the other way every year?
If the electoral votes are weighted by population anyway, what's the point of making someone's red/blue vote not count in a state that leans heavily the other way every year?
29
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:40 am to TheCaterpillar
There isn't one. frick it. The republican form of government that we had in the beginning is dead anyway. Let's just expand the franchise to everyone.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:41 am to TheCaterpillar
You can win the EC count without winning popular vote. It's meant to give a voice to all states instead of just the few with the highest population centers.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to TheCaterpillar
We're a republic
Not a democracy
/end thread
Not a democracy
/end thread
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to TheCaterpillar
Today there really isn't one. More tradition than anything at this point.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
What is the argument for the electoral college instead of a popular vote?
It allows "your" side (whichever side that is) the chance to steal an election you didn't win in the popular vote, which in today's idiocracy is considered a good thing.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to TheCaterpillar
It doesn't seem to work so well.
Demi have population centers like CA and NY locked up.
They have a built in advantage.
Demi have population centers like CA and NY locked up.
They have a built in advantage.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to TheCaterpillar
STates with the most legally owned guns should get the most votes.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:44 am to TheCaterpillar
Because with population centers the way they are, if there was a +500k democrat base, republicans would never win an election and vice versa
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:44 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
If the electoral votes are weighted by population anyway, what's the point of making someone's red/blue vote not count in a state that leans heavily the other way every year?
As good a reason as any is that the population is still not perfectly homogenous. Regional preference should get some weight.
The EC was put into operation by the Framers because they didn't trust the common people to not screw it up.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:45 am to TheCaterpillar
I don't like it. What is the mechanism for reappropriating EVs as the population grows and shifts?
It would make more sense to allow one EV per congressional district with the elected congressperson acting as that district's elector - winner take all. The structure is already there for it and I think you would get better turnout because red voters in deep blue states would feel as their vote counted more(and vice versa) since it wouldn't be winner take all at the state level. Right now, we essentially have three cities (NYC, Chi, and LA)controlling about 40% of the EV needed to hit 270. This is the very thing the EC was supposed to prevent.
It would make more sense to allow one EV per congressional district with the elected congressperson acting as that district's elector - winner take all. The structure is already there for it and I think you would get better turnout because red voters in deep blue states would feel as their vote counted more(and vice versa) since it wouldn't be winner take all at the state level. Right now, we essentially have three cities (NYC, Chi, and LA)controlling about 40% of the EV needed to hit 270. This is the very thing the EC was supposed to prevent.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:45 am to TheCaterpillar
It's was designed to prevent candidates from only campaigning in the cities. With the Electoral college, they have to campaign to all states and populations, urban and rural.
It's actually a good system.
It's actually a good system.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:45 am to TheCaterpillar
It gives states more power.
That's a good thing IMO.
The smaller states benefit the most from the electoral college.
That's a good thing IMO.
The smaller states benefit the most from the electoral college.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:49 am to TheCaterpillar
Electoral college allows small population states to have a voice.
Regardless of population a state can get no fewer than 3 votes.
The Framers of the constitution fully understood that.
The also understood giving voice to the less populous states when they wrote Article V of the constitution that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment.
Regardless of population a state can get no fewer than 3 votes.
The Framers of the constitution fully understood that.
The also understood giving voice to the less populous states when they wrote Article V of the constitution that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:51 am to TheCaterpillar
It was originally set up to keep the coasts from running every election. And now look what's happening - the coasts are pretty much running elections
Basically, your vote counts more if you live in North Dakota than it does if you live in California, Texas, New York, etc.
Basically, your vote counts more if you live in North Dakota than it does if you live in California, Texas, New York, etc.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:58 am to TheCaterpillar
Technically, states don't even have to hold an election to allocate their electors for President. This was not uncommon in the 1800s.
At its heart, the EC is the truest system to the principles of the Republic. The President is selected by the various states, not the entire population.
At its heart, the EC is the truest system to the principles of the Republic. The President is selected by the various states, not the entire population.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:59 am to TheCaterpillar
Check & Balance; as intended by the Founding Fathers.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 11:00 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:59 am to TheCaterpillar
Al Gore, 2000
All the argument I need
All the argument I need
Posted on 11/8/16 at 11:27 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
What is the argument for the electoral college instead of a popular vote?
We are the United STATES of America.
We can't continue to strip away our States' powers.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 11:42 am to TheCaterpillar
It makes everything much easier as far as tallying "votes" for president/vp. There is too much room for frick ups if you use the popular vote, and people can argue forever over one hanging chad.
Think of it like this.....would you rather have a meeting with 300 employees or 5 managers?
# of electors is basically based off of population, so people arguing the small states vs big city thing are wasting their time. That only effects very small states with 3 votes, which is an almost inconsequential number in the grand scheme of things.
A huge problem with it IMHO, is that candidates focus in just a few key swing states with the most votes. I am appreciative that Trump spent much time all over the country. Hillary basically spent her time in 5 states.
Think of it like this.....would you rather have a meeting with 300 employees or 5 managers?
# of electors is basically based off of population, so people arguing the small states vs big city thing are wasting their time. That only effects very small states with 3 votes, which is an almost inconsequential number in the grand scheme of things.
A huge problem with it IMHO, is that candidates focus in just a few key swing states with the most votes. I am appreciative that Trump spent much time all over the country. Hillary basically spent her time in 5 states.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 11:47 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News