- 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
0
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:18 pm to tjv305
I agree, No need to get rid of, just maybe revamp….1 vote per state. LA, NYC should not have more say than East Feliciana because they stack people on top of one another.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:28 pm to RFK
quote:
Persistent mismatches in which the national popular-vote winner loses the presidency, combined with sustained majority public support for a direct popular election, will eventually encourage elimination of the Electoral College.
This has happened five times so far:
• 1824: Andrew Jackson (popular vote winner) lost to John Quincy Adams
• 1876: Samuel Tilden (popular vote winner) lost to Rutherford B. Hayes
• 1888: Grover Cleveland (popular vote winner) lost to Benjamin Harrison
• 2000: Al Gore (popular vote winner) lost to George W. Bush
• 2016: Hillary Clinton (popular vote winner) lost to Donald Trump
Changing the rules of the game would necessarily change the way the game is played.
Imagine how football would change if we stopped counting points scored and went by total yards gained to determine the winner. You'd fire your punter (why would you ever punt?), your placekicker (why settle for field goals when you might gain 1 or more additional yards), and all kick-offs would be onsides (leaves your opponent with a short field with less opportunity to gain yards, and you might even get the ball back). Yes, it's a ridiculous thought experiment, but it goes to show that changing election rules might yield results that are unexpected.
We live in the United STATES of America, and the Electoral College helps preserve states' rights.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:29 pm to RFK
New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago would basically elect our President. No thanks.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:29 pm to Powerman
quote:
It's irrelevant to presidential elections because it's not in play. It's not going red anytime soon. I think you're misinterpreting things. The only states that matter in presidential elections are seeing states.
I was today years old when I learned that winning ONE state that is worth over 10% of the total EC votes and 1/5th of the total EC votes needed to actually win is actually completely and totally irrelevant to winning the EC.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:32 pm to RFK
quote:
Persistent mismatches in which the national popular-vote winner loses the presidency, combined with sustained majority public support for a direct popular election, will eventually encourage elimination of the Electoral College
It w9uld take a constitutional amendment or convention and there are more than enough red, rural states to block. You would have to convince millions to vote against their obvious self-interest.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:38 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Direct democracy doesn’t mean you select your representative government by popular vote.
You know the president isn’t your “representative” right? He is the head of government.
Your representatives would be the legislative branch.
Electing your HEAD OF GOVERNMENT by direct 1 person 1 vote and the winner is the person with the most votes is direct democracy.
quote:
Go play with your toys retard. Someone will be along to pat you on the head.
Indeed you should.
This post was edited on 8/2/26 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:39 pm to RFK
quote:
Eliminating the Electoral College
F-U
This post was edited on 8/2/26 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:46 pm to RFK
Pro: Finally prompt red state succession.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:47 pm to RFK
Absolutely ridiculous proposal. Going to a straight popular vote fundamentally changes our form of government from a constitutional republic to a straight democracy. This leaves the nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority, which is one of the results our Founding Fathers were explicitly trying to avoid.
If it were to happen I’d advocate for a separation of states. One, for the constitutionalist states, retaining the construct of our current nation, laws and freedoms. And of course the name USA and the flag. The second, can become the Democratic People’s States of America. And when their communism ultimately fails as it will, we’ll just build bigger walls!
If it were to happen I’d advocate for a separation of states. One, for the constitutionalist states, retaining the construct of our current nation, laws and freedoms. And of course the name USA and the flag. The second, can become the Democratic People’s States of America. And when their communism ultimately fails as it will, we’ll just build bigger walls!
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:52 pm to beerJeep
quote:A national popular vote would not make us a direct democracy. We would still be electing a representative to exercise executive power, not voting directly on laws. You are confusing direct election with direct democracy.
Retards who don’t understand we aren’t a direct democracy and never have been.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:55 pm to RFK
quote:
Persistent mismatches in which the national popular-vote winner loses the presidency, combined with sustained majority public support for a direct popular election, will eventually encourage elimination of the Electoral College.
You begin with the faulty assumption that a “national popular vote” was ever a priority to the drafters of the constitution.
Most states didn’t even hold an election for President in the early republic. Technically, states wouldn’t have to hold an election today; they could just direct the state legislature to award its EC votes to which candidate it chooses.
The problem is decades of poor education convincing Americans that our government is a democracy. It isn’t.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 12:57 pm to RFK
Bridge too far for me buddy. I'm locked and loaded.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:00 pm to beerJeep
quote:You are still confusing direct election with direct democracy.
You know the president isn’t your “representative” right? He is the head of government.
Your representatives would be the legislative branch.
Electing your HEAD OF GOVERNMENT by direct 1 person 1 vote and the winner is the person with the most votes is direct democracy.
Direct democracy means citizens directly decide laws and public policy rather than delegating those decisions to elected officials. Electing a president by one-person, one-vote would merely be a direct election of an executive officeholder. The voters would not suddenly be governing, writing laws, or deciding policy themselves.
And “representative government” is not limited to legislators. The president is an elected public official exercising delegated governmental authority on behalf of the electorate. Calling him head of government does not transform his election into direct democracy.
By your definition, every country that directly elects its president is a direct democracy. That is plainly false.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:01 pm to Powerman
Not in this case. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. How do you folks not understand this?
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:05 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Saying we aren't a democracy, we're a republic is like saying, “that's not an automobile. It's a sedan.” A republic is a form of democracy, not its opposite. The United States is a democratic republic: representatives govern, but their authority ultimately comes from elections and the consent of the governed. That's a democracy.
The problem is decades of poor education convincing Americans that our government is a democracy. It isn’t.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:06 pm to RFK
The plan (yours and others)is first orchestrated. But now necessary to get this out as a talking point. And then if dems win thin majority in the midterms in both House and Senate, then to put abolition of the EC along with a few other items in the platform and run on it. And by chance a win in 2028? Then call it a mandate to abolish the EC or change the Supreme Court etc.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:06 pm to RFK
quote:
Pro: It would guarantee that the candidate who receives the most individual votes nationwide becomes president, more closely reflecting the direct preference of the overall electorate
The POTUS is not elected by the “electorate”. The POTUS is elected by the states with each individual state’s “electorate” choosing who the state voted for
quote:
Con: It would reduce the relative influence of less-populous states, potentially causing candidates to focus almost exclusively on large urban population centers.
And this is EXACTLY why we have the EC.
Some of you should actually read the Constitution once before attempting to destroy it.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:07 pm to Jbird
quote:
It would effectively cause Presidents to GAF about NYC LA Houston and Chicago and that's about it.
There are many cities much bigger than Houston.
Posted on 8/2/26 at 1:08 pm to RFK
quote:
argue that selecting the president by national popular vote remains fully compatible with that republican framework.
Except for the simple fact that it isnt.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News