Started By
Message

re: Eliminating the Electoral College Has Pros/Cons Depending on Where You Stand

Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:26 pm to
Posted by riccoar
Arkansas
Member since Mar 2006
5499 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:26 pm to
There are ZERO Pros. They are all Cons. Those proposing it are likely CONS
Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger
Bat'n Rudge
Member since Oct 2004
64246 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:28 pm to
How can you gerrymander a presidential election?
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
14696 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:29 pm to
A republic, madam, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
43702 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:30 pm to
Downvote number 258 checking in without reading.
Posted by Wolfwireless
Member since Aug 2024
6094 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:30 pm to
quote:

This claim is wrong because critics of the Electoral College generally understand the United States is a constitutional republic, not a pure direct democracy, and simply argue that selecting the president by national popular vote remains fully compatible with that republican framework.

I used to think the electoral college was unfair and that it needed to be changed.
I was young and stupid at the time. I grew up and grew to understand things more.

What's your excuse?
Posted by Zendog
Santa Barbara
Member since Feb 2019
7159 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:33 pm to
frick off
Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger
Bat'n Rudge
Member since Oct 2004
64246 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:36 pm to
You would literally have to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC. Do you really think you can get 38 states to go along with this foolishness, let alone 2/3 of both houses of congress?
Posted by Lsutigerturner
Member since Dec 2016
7573 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:44 pm to
If they get rid of electoral college there will be a civil war, abs a divide of the states. It can’t happen but probably will, and our children will reap the shite rewards. Very sad about long term, land owned in different states will be seized, investments will be destroyed or seized also. It’s sad but I think it’s going to happen no matter what. Such a shame what was built and is being built by the hard working is being destroyed by the ultra liberal minds.
Posted by shoelessjoe
Member since Jul 2006
11520 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 2:49 pm to
Liberals and leftists are for this, frick all of that. We have problems now like the system is, with idiots on the left.
Posted by Wolfwireless
Member since Aug 2024
6094 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:00 pm to
quote:

but their authority ultimately comes from elections and the consent of the governed. That's a democracy.

1) in what you're saying, we could also popular vote those representatives right back out. We would just vote whether we still want them in or not, and if the popular vote says we don't, they have to leave office.
2) In a democracy we would vote on every law being passed.

We don't. "Representatives" do. Hence, republic.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
84070 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:00 pm to

Assuming you got rid of winner take all, you then make sure that your state has no congressional districts (or they are outnumbered) that would go the opposite way.

California for example would have only 1 or 2 red districts vs. many blue.

Posted by Wolfwireless
Member since Aug 2024
6094 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:04 pm to
quote:

RFK = conman

RFK = DSA neophyte.
Posted by Wolfwireless
Member since Aug 2024
6094 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:08 pm to
quote:

Definition of Pure Democracy: two wolves and a sheep vote on what is for supper


I love that analogy!
Posted by soonerinlOUisiana
South of I-10
Member since Aug 2012
2946 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:20 pm to
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


In a nation that is a union of sovereign states before else, why is this a “pro”?
Posted by Hoobadeedoobadee
Member since Jul 2026
23 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:27 pm to
quote:

Jerrymandering makes this virtually impossible.


I saw that episode. That’s when Jerry messed up Kramer’s hot tub idea.
Posted by Antonio Moss
The South
Member since Mar 2006
49581 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 4:40 pm to
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.


That is categorically false. A republic is not a form of a democracy. A republic is a government where the authority of government is held in the law. A democracy is a form of government where the authority of government is held with the majority of the people.

Demos = People, Kratos = Power

Res = Thing, Publica = the People’s

“Republic” is Latin for “the People’s thing”, which is the law. It’s a shared code that applies to all citizens.

“Democracy” comes from the Greeks which means “Rule of the People”

So, no, a Republic is not some subcategory of Democracy. It is an independent system of government.

Hence why at the founding, the American people had only one federal vote - for their representative. The rest of the Legislative branch, and the entirety of the Executive and Judicial branches were not determined by a mass vote.

This post was edited on 8/2/26 at 4:43 pm
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
26582 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 4:46 pm to
It would give the deep blue cities with huge populations even more incentive to cheat and fight harder against voter ID, restrictions on mail-in ballots, or any other election security measure.

Right now election shenanigans in those cities can only swing the race in their state. But if the popular vote decided the election, then cheating in places like NYC, LA, San Fran, and Chicago could sway the entire election.
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
45402 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 5:36 pm to
Go to hell commie.
Posted by SOSFAN
Blythewood
Member since Jun 2018
16447 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 5:46 pm to
quote:

RFK


You are the reason there should be a minimum of a 50 IQ before being allowed to start a thread.
Posted by djsdawg
Member since Apr 2015
42366 posts
Posted on 8/2/26 at 5:48 pm to
quote:

Pro: It would guarantee that the candidate who receives the most individual votes nationwide becomes president,


Not a pro in a nation of liberal retards
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram