Cipheraxz
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Feb 2014 |
| Total Posts: 5151 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:35 PM |
-Creates possibility of loser to win -Encourages parties to shrug off campaigning in states they know they can't win/states that give that most points/swing states -Encourages first term presidents to not do things they want to do (i.e. restore connections with cuba [an old example]) just to win -Distorts first past the post used by almost all democracies and used by us (another bad system) -Ties are scary to go through, especially in certain scenarios like the one we have now -Makes it so third parties really can't win the election, and if they win a state or they drastically change the outcome -Disregards rules of the constitution, such as saying that electors can not vote for a president and vice president from the same state. For example, when Bush was voted in, it technically prohibited Texan Electors from voting for both Bush and Cheney. -Back to the ties- population wouldn't matter in ties since the tie vote is voted by a one state-one vote basis. -Ties were made because the Framers thought it would be used more often- kind of supporting the fact that the constitution and the US government is outdated here and there
also electors dont have to vote for who won, and people could in theory pay off their fines
just saying, while the electoral college helps rural states, its extremely broken and flawed, maybe if we changed it up a bit it would be good.
MessageBox.Show("I use C#"); |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
OrderBy
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Dec 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1924 |
|
| |
|
Vidkun
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10381 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:36 PM |
| from the percentages of the popular vote its obvious we cant trust the people to make the right decision |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cipheraxz
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Feb 2014 |
| Total Posts: 5151 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:44 PM |
since it can be a 51-49 difference, it's very easy to say that you can't trust the people to make a decision- no matter what side you are on
again, im not saying get rid of the college, just amend it
MessageBox.Show("I use C#"); |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
HlCOM
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3332 |
|
| |
|
Pyroux
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Jun 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10120 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:45 PM |
| Shut up lol, people always complain about the electoral college but if it wasn't implemented then think about the US's condition if everything was based off popular vote |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cipheraxz
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Feb 2014 |
| Total Posts: 5151 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:45 PM |
disavow what
MessageBox.Show("I use C#"); |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
HlCOM
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3332 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:46 PM |
| ur just mad cause u lost xD |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cipheraxz
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Feb 2014 |
| Total Posts: 5151 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:46 PM |
"Shut up lol, people always complain about the electoral college but >if it wasn't implemented then think about the US's condition if everything was based off popular vote<"
AGAIN, not saying get rid of it, im saying amend it
MessageBox.Show("I use C#"); |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:48 PM |
You don't go by percentage in this, you go by raw number.
Without the electoral college every vote wins.
If we kept it, the states should enforce a split down the middle vote because we currently run on a winner take all system which is atrocious |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cipheraxz
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Feb 2014 |
| Total Posts: 5151 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 05:49 PM |
we currently run on a winner take all system which is atrocious [2]
MessageBox.Show("I use C#"); |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:05 PM |
You think that the alternative is much better?
Using just the popular vote, the votes of millions of people who don't live in: San Francisco New York City Los Angeles Miami Chicago Baltimore Philadelphia Austin Dallas Detroit Denver
and maybe a few other cities would become useless. Completely disenfranchised. Because well more than half of the population lives in those cities. And people who don't live in those cities will never see the candidates, will never see a campaign ad, will never hear anything about the campaign, and if those cities all vote regionally as they usually do (IE: the area of Los Angeles usually always trends in one direction), then the people who don't live there will have no say in government. They lose representation. It's dictatorship of the majority, 51% has complete and total, absolute control over the other 49% unrelentingly.
The electoral college makes every place relevant, and it ensures campaigning in more than just 10 places. It gives everyone equal representation, or at least an equal shot at it. The issue with the popular vote is so much bigger than the issue with the still imperfect electoral college. Yes, the loser overall can win with the
Frankly, the better alternative would be to base it off a similar system to congress. Delegates based on the HoR would be selected individually based on the voting of their congressional district. The delegates based on the senate would be selected based on who won the majority in a state, and it would be winner-takes-all for the 3 in DC. Then the electoral college would take place as usual. It's still not perfect, given gerrymandering, but that's a completely separate issue needing to be taken care of. And it's a million times better than the current election system, and a billion times better than using popular vote.
Also, your point about paying off electors: Yes, it's potentially true. But political parties select their electors carefully. These are people who are viewed as most likely to stay loyal to the party. They have been in the party for 30, 40 years, held office, and are often times wealthy enough to not be affected by bribery. Not to mention that, you know, bribing an elector is illegal. Has an elector flipping sides happened before? On a few occasions. Has it ever affected an election's outcome? No.
In general, yeah, there are parts of the constitution that are outdated with how are government is structured. That's why there are amendments. But make no mistake, there are certain rights outlined in the constitution that are crucial to individuality, and amending those is immoral. De-facto disenfranchising half of the country based on political views would be like imposing ### #### laws again. Know the fullest implications of what you are suggesting before you suggest.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
b3njam1n
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Nov 2007 |
| Total Posts: 19389 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:11 PM |
| What the heck does this have to do with Clans or even ROBLOX.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Cipheraxz
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Feb 2014 |
| Total Posts: 5151 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:18 PM |
before i respond, did you just type that out king O_O
the amount of time on your hand O_O
king, first past the post, or winner takes all, is the main problem here
if we switched to another system, where not only representation would be better but 3rd parties could actually do stuff, we would be much better off
CGP Grey has great videos on this topic; it would be easier if you watched the videos than i explain them
hes on youtube |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jltom
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 34279 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:22 PM |
i like what king said
r+://458569051r+://458568964r+://458568899 JLTOM | JUSTIN50003 | KENNYOMEGA |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:24 PM |
This election cycle was too close to actually ignore 2 million people voted for Hillary.
That is too far of a gap for people to get stuck with a different person than the one they voted for.
You can't just ignore 2 million people and then 36 different protest over the winner and every single person including trump himself stating that the electoral college misrepresents the majority and the minority.
They need to move away from a winner take all system in states and either have a rule for a majority gap of up to or more then 2% of the population or split states so battleground states are even harder to gain because if you didn't notice more than 3 of the states that were key were decided by . something of a percentage with none of the gaps being more than 200k |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
CPTAndy
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1253 |
|
| |
|
Froast
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3134 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:34 PM |
This video goes over it well (you've probably seen it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k (his follow up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM)
Personally I don't see how it makes sense. When the founders talked about a "tyranny of the majority" referring more to the people who weren't competent politicians as they thought themselves as. Regardless of what those dead people thought, can you really oppose a tyranny of the majority and not a tyranny of the minority? Why should you have a louder voice just because of where you live?
The electoral college actively gives specific people's votes more power than others. If I said to your face on voting day that your vote is now only half of everyone else's you probably wouldn't be very happy about it. But guess what? Move to a big city and it will suddenly be that way. Also to say you're not getting representation if you don't get your way is ludicrous. If I put you in a room with 10 people and the other 9 agreed on something while you didn't, are you not getting representation or just not getting your way? If the United States believes in "equality" than every person should have an equal vote (yes, yes, I know it's a republic not a democracy, doesn't change the fact that the country campaigns for itself using that word).
I have never liked the electoral college, it's not about this specific election which I could really care less about. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
waysideme
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Dec 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3591 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:36 PM |
| Sorry to break it to you but that is just the way the cookie crumbles when it come to elections in the US! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
888min3
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7756 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:37 PM |
President Donald J. Trump [2]
I'm 888min3/888min2. Colonel of the Vaktovian Empire. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:40 PM |
I think I understand it pretty well, actually. I've seen CGP's videos on the topic.
The issue with the electoral college is that it can diverge from the popular vote and the less popular candidate can win. This is by no means typical, but 6 times out of some 57 elections is statistically significant. The issue with the popular vote is that it disenfranchises half of the population of the country. Think about it realistically. In theory, it should work, but the reality is, one of the major factor in deciding political affiliations is the region you live in. It is in fact so strong that it determines other factors also affecting your affiliation. Similar regions also tend to vote similarly. Urban areas have historically almost always voted in unison, flipping from liberal to conservative every few years. It's currently liberal, which means that a popular vote would effectively disenfranchise the 38% of people who identify directly as conservative, even though that percentage is currently 24% for liberals(According to Gallup, who also points out 34% of people as moderates as of 2015.) Is it at all fair to impose a liberal government on people when more people are conservative or moderate? Absolutely not. And the Electoral college doesn't deal with that too too well either. But it does manage it significantly better than the popular vote because the EC gives both parties a decent chance to earn representation.
Like I said, the solution is to hold delegates to where they originate from. The 538 electoral delegates come from congressional representation. The electors are sent from the winning party and each represent a congressman. There are 435 electors for the House, 100 for the Senate, and 3 for DC.
Ammending the electoral college so that delegates established based on the House are elected specifically from their congressional district and electing delegates based on the senate from the overall vote in the state would bridge the gap between the two voting paths for presidential elections. It helps give some of the specificity of the popular vote, but it also guarantees(to an even further degree) that people will be guaranteed a valid vote regardless of where they live.
Even though Trump lost the popular vote, by the way, Republicans still won both houses of congress. That's valid proof that the majority of the country at least wants a conservative congress.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
b3njam1n
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Nov 2007 |
| Total Posts: 19389 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:41 PM |
| Trump stole the election, he should be deported for insulting President Clinton |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
entrant
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 5111 |
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:41 PM |
| Most of the U.S. is red. Deal with it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:43 PM |
"we currently run on a winner take all system which is atrocious [2]"
oh hey you just described a direct democracy that elects by popular vote
but please, before you keep making more ignorant comments, at least read madison's excerpts in the federalist papers explaining WHY he introduced the electoral college. it'll explain it perfectly to you. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Nov 2016 06:44 PM |
i dont understand how you can complain about states using winner-take-all systems, then propose the entire nation to adopt the same system
that's insanely laughable |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|