I read 2 of tang's posts yesterday, and that's enough to last me for a while, but I'll offer-up this. I think the EC is a POS and always has been. It makes single votes is some States more important than the same single votes in other States, and that isn't what our system is supposed to be about. All people are supposed to be represented equally, and they are not under the EC.

I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 1/30/2019 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Crap, I agree with rsp. There must be a lunar eclipse.

Any chance the next debate could be about college safe spaces?

It can whatever you want. That topic seems like it would be more of a shouting, name-calling match than a fact-supported debate, but we will just call Throwdown Thursday. Throwdown Thursday is the brother of Smackdown Saturday.

Anybody want to try to support the moronic idea of sanctuary cities?

Before you do, here's a fact for you - On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810 – or $454 per person. A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data.

Only BL.

I don't even know what all3 is saying there.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

Not sure how the electoral college eliminates that issue. trump still got 45% of the popular vote and won despite 55% not voting for him. I also agree with your point about California and NY deciding many elections. Even though they would probably be decided in a way that mostly corresponded with my vote, it still isn't fair. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to resolve the issue that someone would not complain about, unless you were to make it mandatory to vote in a presidential election and that kind of goes against the American way.

Posted by all3 on 1/31/2019 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I read 2 of tang's posts yesterday, and that's enough to last me for a while, but I'll offer-up this. I think the EC is a POS and always has been. It makes single votes is some States more important than the same single votes in other States, and that isn't what our system is supposed to be about. All people are supposed to be represented equally, and they are not under the EC.

For once, I agree with all3.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

Again, Cali and NY are 16% of the voting population.

That said, politicians should campaign there. That's where the most people are.

Again, the senate exists.

The plurality thing could happen under the electoral college, but worse since Trump wouldn't have to win a majority.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

I don't think you'd like what happens if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes either.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/31/2019 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

Not sure how the electoral college eliminates that issue. trump still got 45% of the popular vote and won despite 55% not voting for him. I also agree with your point about California and NY deciding many elections. Even though they would probably be decided in a way that mostly corresponded with my vote, it still isn't fair. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to resolve the issue that someone would not complain about, unless you were to make it mandatory to vote in a presidential election and that kind of goes against the American way.

I don't really see how it's unfair that the states with the biggest populations have the most influence in the election. That seems to be the way it should be.

It's that way in the electoral college, too. But, because it's winner take all, states that lean heavily one way or another (regardless of population size), get ignored during the campaign. That means California and New York but also small population states like Wyoming and Idaho.

I also think it's not really that important. Campaign rallies are bullshit. Appeals to whatever voters want in Florida and Ohio and North Carolina are largely bullshit that have zero impact on actual policy once the candidate is in office.

Wow. I thought that there was going to be a lot more pushback from yall.

Last time I brought this up there was a huge debate.

Posted by tangplay on 1/31/2019 10:50:00 AM (view original):
So I have a couple of reasons why we should replace the electoral college with either a popular vote, a system in each state like what Maine and Nebraska have, or a more proportional system.

First, the electoral college is unfair to larger states. Due to the disproportionate nature of electoral votes assigned, an electoral college vote in Wyoming represents about 200k people, while an electoral college vote in California is worth 725k people. This is simply unfair. A person is a person, and their vote should be counted equally regardless of which state they are from. A disproportionate electoral college system leads to elections like 2000 and 2016, when a candidate won the popular vote - more Americans wanted that candidate to win - and lost.

Next, I still don't like how the popular vote is filtered through the elector system. Democrats tried to convince electors to vote for Clinton instead of Trump in 2016, which is really shady, Because the electors are party loyalists, if Bernie Sanders had won the primary and the general, it is feasible that electors could vote against Sanders and for, say, Clinton when they filled out their ballots.

Finally, the the electoral college was created for two reasons: “The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.” Both these reasons are invalid today. The first reason was due to the founding fathers “ feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. “ which is irrelevant today because Trump got elected. I kid. The second reason was partly due to wanting to keep slavery. Southern states were given more votes proportionally. So while some might argue that it is part of our constitution so we should keep it, both reasons why the founding fathers put the electoral college in the constitution are outdated today.

Also, I support giving rural areas a say. That's why we have the senate.

Debate away.

Nice post...well whought out and will stated.

For the life of me I don't know why, but Americans have the idea that we are a Democracy. We are not. Stating the reasons why we are (and should continue to be) a Republic would take more time than I have. There is a legitimate distinction between those two forms of government. The electoral college is absolutely necessary to keep this country a union of 50 states rather than one big (unitary) state. Again, there is a legitimate distinction between how the 50 states interact versus how one state would operate. Thank God we have 50 states and thank God we are not a Democracy.

One person, One vote. I agree completely with the point tang makes in the statement below. If it's a "how is funding distributed" issue, then the funding needs to be separated from the electoral process.

tangplay:
Finally, the the electoral college was created for two reasons: “The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.” Both these reasons are invalid today. The first reason was due to the founding fathers “ feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. “ which is irrelevant today because Trump got elected. I kid. The second reason was partly due to wanting to keep slavery. Southern states were given more votes proportionally. So while some might argue that it is part of our constitution so we should keep it, both reasons why the founding fathers put the electoral college in the constitution are outdated today.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/31/2019 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/31/2019 10:50:00 AM (view original):
So I have a couple of reasons why we should replace the electoral college with either a popular vote, a system in each state like what Maine and Nebraska have, or a more proportional system.

First, the electoral college is unfair to larger states. Due to the disproportionate nature of electoral votes assigned, an electoral college vote in Wyoming represents about 200k people, while an electoral college vote in California is worth 725k people. This is simply unfair. A person is a person, and their vote should be counted equally regardless of which state they are from. A disproportionate electoral college system leads to elections like 2000 and 2016, when a candidate won the popular vote - more Americans wanted that candidate to win - and lost.

Next, I still don't like how the popular vote is filtered through the elector system. Democrats tried to convince electors to vote for Clinton instead of Trump in 2016, which is really shady, Because the electors are party loyalists, if Bernie Sanders had won the primary and the general, it is feasible that electors could vote against Sanders and for, say, Clinton when they filled out their ballots.

Finally, the the electoral college was created for two reasons: “The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.” Both these reasons are invalid today. The first reason was due to the founding fathers “ feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. “ which is irrelevant today because Trump got elected. I kid. The second reason was partly due to wanting to keep slavery. Southern states were given more votes proportionally. So while some might argue that it is part of our constitution so we should keep it, both reasons why the founding fathers put the electoral college in the constitution are outdated today.

Also, I support giving rural areas a say. That's why we have the senate.

Debate away.

Nice post...well whought out and will stated.

For the life of me I don't know why, but Americans have the idea that we are a Democracy. We are not. Stating the reasons why we are (and should continue to be) a Republic would take more time than I have. There is a legitimate distinction between those two forms of government. The electoral college is absolutely necessary to keep this country a union of 50 states rather than one big (unitary) state. Again, there is a legitimate distinction between how the 50 states interact versus how one state would operate. Thank God we have 50 states and thank God we are not a Democracy.

I disagree with this:

The electoral college is absolutely necessary to keep this country a union of 50 states rather than one big (unitary) state

Again, we have the senate, and I still believe in federalism. The states get to control many decisions.

Also, the President doesn't preside over 50 states. He presides over the Union. That's why we shouldn't give some states more of a say proportionally than others in electing their leader.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/31/2019 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

Not sure how the electoral college eliminates that issue. trump still got 45% of the popular vote and won despite 55% not voting for him. I also agree with your point about California and NY deciding many elections. Even though they would probably be decided in a way that mostly corresponded with my vote, it still isn't fair. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to resolve the issue that someone would not complain about, unless you were to make it mandatory to vote in a presidential election and that kind of goes against the American way.

DJT got 46.7% and HRC got 48.9%. Neither got over 50%, interestingly enough thanks to Gary Johnson (mostly) and Jill Stein. So the argument is if you left it a 2 party vote and neither Johnson nor Stein ran who would get those ~6mil votes. HRC beat DJT by 2.8mil votes. It could be that most of the 4.5 mil votes that went to Johnson would go to DJT and Stein's 1.4mil would go to HRC as Libertarians are more right leaning and the Green party is more left leaning. Now you have a damn close election. Instead the electoral college keeps it basically a two party system for the most part.

I again lean toward totality of votes but I can see why the Electoral College works as well. I think maybe we should have a voting process where you can vote for two candidates? So the Johnson and Stein ones could vote for a major candidate too in case theirs loses? Something like that and then count the popular vote? LOL. Sounds dumb but I am just fishing for ideas.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 1/31/2019 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/31/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I don't have any issue with what Tang wrote. My vote is meaningless in my very Blue state but would be more meaningful if it actually counted. My concern is that NY and Cali would ultimately decide who our President is ALL the time. I like that states like NH and Montana can make a difference. Candidates would never go there in a popular election. You potentially run into taxation w/o represenation in the highest office. At least there is a perception of that.

Lastly, winning the popular vote does not always equate to majority. Let's say in 2020 the primary vote getters are Trump, Warren and Schultz.

Trump gets 45%
Warren gets 40%
Schults gets 15%

Trump wins but he only got 45% of the vote. 55% of the people did not want Trump but he still won. With the Electoral College you sort off eliminate that issue.

All that being said I lean toward counting all the votes vs. Electoral College.

Not sure how the electoral college eliminates that issue. trump still got 45% of the popular vote and won despite 55% not voting for him. I also agree with your point about California and NY deciding many elections. Even though they would probably be decided in a way that mostly corresponded with my vote, it still isn't fair. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to resolve the issue that someone would not complain about, unless you were to make it mandatory to vote in a presidential election and that kind of goes against the American way.

DJT got 46.7% and HRC got 48.9%. Neither got over 50%, interestingly enough thanks to Gary Johnson (mostly) and Jill Stein. So the argument is if you left it a 2 party vote and neither Johnson nor Stein ran who would get those ~6mil votes. HRC beat DJT by 2.8mil votes. It could be that most of the 4.5 mil votes that went to Johnson would go to DJT and Stein's 1.4mil would go to HRC as Libertarians are more right leaning and the Green party is more left leaning. Now you have a damn close election. Instead the electoral college keeps it basically a two party system for the most part.

I again lean toward totality of votes but I can see why the Electoral College works as well. I think maybe we should have a voting process where you can vote for two candidates? So the Johnson and Stein ones could vote for a major candidate too in case theirs loses? Something like that and then count the popular vote? LOL. Sounds dumb but I am just fishing for ideas.

I didn't say that Johnson and Stein couldn't be voted for.

Ranked Choice?