I probably should've capitalized the "m". Don't let Batty see. Shhhh....

I guess that one person, one vote doesn't imply an equal vote, so nullification is a bit of a hyperbole. That said, it bastardizes the concept at best if John's vote in Kentucky is counts as one vote and Toby's vote in New York only counts as 3/5 of a vote. Plus, the electoral college was intended to keep populists like Trump out of office and while I'm annoyed that they weren't successful, that reeks of aristocratic puppeteering, don't it?

https://i.postimg.cc/xT5qhfH2/2-A0-A...-F022-AC08.png

96% of mammalian organic matter. 6th great extinction.

How dafuq could anybody on earth not see it?

What you need to do is read up on what’s going on to the earth’s environment.

Sure, I'm not disagreeing that it undermines the concept of a pure majoritarian democracy, but is that a bad thing? Should two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner (yes, yes, a gross simplification)?

Yes, the electoral college was designed to keep populists and unqualified candidates out of office, and to prevent tyranny of the majority - as you point out, the system is not perfect. But I think it'd be more productive to look at how most states award electors (a winner-take-all basis) and make improvements - perhaps implement ranked-choice voting like Maine did - rather than just throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare the electoral college to be worthless and ineffective.

How you gonna build them roads? You didn't build that.

Yeah, I'll do that, right after I put another baby into my girlfriend. And take my nice petrol-fuelled car to get me a cheeseburger.

I don’t want roads.

The baby is dead.

Ja.

The winner take all system should be done away with as well, I don't see that whatabouting any effectiveness into the electoral college.

We'll have to disagree on that then.

I think you're right, not alone it wouldn't. Perhaps implement a winner-take-all system for electoral votes, implement ranked choice voting, and have viable third parties and you might have real alternatives to our political duopoly and said alternatives might have real solutions - or at least steps in the right direction.

(I know, I know, I'm dreaming)

what benefit does the electoral college offer? I understand it was originally intended to give smaller states more power but why is that even a good thing?

The end result is most people's vote literally doesn't matter. I'm not sure what practical reasons there are to keep it around.

I was taught that they were there in case the masses made an absolutely idiotic choice they could just say nope sorry.

I actually thought they were probably going to reject Trump. I thought that they were a safeguard.

I used to think it was a pretty good idea to have two senators from each state

10th Amendment

I’m not really arguing anything in particular just that federalism isn’t working out very well these days.

That's the purpose of having electors who cast the votes for any given state. That's only one part of the electoral college, and a relatively irrelevant part in terms of how elections have historically been decided. Electors virtually always vote the way their state's population did.

The other part of the electoral college, and the truly relevant part to modern elections, is that states are given a certain number of electoral points based on population but scaled so that while more popular states have more electoral points, the difference between them and smaller states is less drastic than the difference in population. So in other words, it disproportionately gives smaller states more power relative to their population size.

The other aspect is most states use winner take all method of distributing their electoral points. So whichever party wins the popular vote in said state gets all of the electoral points, as opposed to the proportional method where if the Dems get 60% of the vote and the Reps get 40%, they split the electoral points 60/40. If every state adopted this proportional method then at the very least everyone's vote would count, though smaller state voters would still count more.

No I get the states rights sentiment behind the logic of the electoral college - I just don't buy it

It applies specifically to federal elections which affect everyone equally. What the electoral college means is that basically your vote means less or even nothing in federal elections depending on which state you live in.

So this is priveledging the rights of some states over other states and some citizens over other citizens depending on which state they live in.

I’m not trying to be defensive but I get that

From wiki
That’s why I mentioned the senate. It’s the two senators whether you’re in Montana or California that kills things.

But it wouldn’t be so bad if we actually honored the 10th Amendment

The Senate is actually a different but related question. I also think it's unfair but if I had to choose I'd rather get rid of the electoral college than reform the Senate.

What you quoted about the electors mirroring the representation in the house still doesn't quite factor in that both are structured to favor small states over large states. But only the electoral college has the confounding factor that in most states (the ones who are winner take all and vote either consistently red or blue) your vote for president literally doesn't matter. This means the vote of most Americans is utterly meaningless in presidential elections.

Also to be clear getting rid of the electoral college doesn't affect the 10th amendment, which only states that powers not specifically designated to the federal government are assumed by the states. This has nothing to do with the procedure of federal elections.

I'm actually open to the idea of a more proportional method. Right now the only alternative to having the electoral college is basically just letting California and New York decide every election, so we need something more like a baby step in a different direction.

It’s the senate plus the house. It’s the only two senators thing that causes the imbalance.

The relationship is the overreach of the federal government that wouldn’t be allowed if the 10th amendment was legit followed.

People should count less because they live in NY or Cali? Why?

Cause the U.S. is a big place and Hollywood can't hire everybody. Is there something inherently special about those particular states compared to people living everywhere else?

One vote in Montana would still be an entire vote just not greater than one.

That wouldn't happen lol. The parties shape themselves based on popular opinion. If the electoral college disappeared then both parties would be forced to change their electoral strategies, especially the Republicans. Or else they would be replaced by another party that could compete. The idea it would lead to a one party state is completely unfounded. Last time we lost a political party they were replaced immediately by the Republican party.

Very likely our national politics would move somewhat to the left, as a reflection of our actual population. But most likely the rural/urban split would remain. Except in this case the Republicans or their replacements would be competing not just for red or purple states but red or purple populations... Including many people living in blue states currently ignored by Republicans in the national elections. And the same would be true for Democrats in red states. I fail to see how this isn't an improvement.

No. They should get an equally weighted vote as individuals same as anywhere.

Honestly I don’t even care but that’s the point.

Even in Oregon you go 50 miles outside of Portland or Eugene and it might as well be Alabama.

Also there's severe irony in the talking point "NY and Cali would determine every election"when that's what currently happens except it's with completely ****ed states like Florida and Michigan and Ohio.

The only upshot to the popular vote is that it would force people to restructure in more major urban areas. Which is better for both society and the economy.

I'm tired of politicians throwing on a barn jacket, standing in front of a shut-down factory in Akron, and talking about bringing jobs back. The problem isn't policies. The problem is major factories only work in the suburbs if the rest of the globe is too nuked to function.

And the environment.

Good post.

I'd be fine with the electoral college going away if it led to the proliferation of other parties besides some variation of red versus blue at every turn. Maybe that's what it would actually take.

Would you support an amendment that said that everybody has to run as an independent?

That's be almost refreshing compared to what we are dealing with today. Does anybody really want to sit through another televised DNC or RNC event?

I will never see the appeal of new labels.

the other upshot being a closer approximation to democracy...

most likely not. When I said they could be replaced by another party I meant just that... Two parties with one of them switched. Our style of government lends itself to two party rule.

Is democracy good? The shaven apes that drive around this country in cars they don't need, eating food they largely waste, and screaming at televisions are given to emotional swings. You should have a few barries in the way to slow down those emotional knee-jerks.

The electoral college is supposed to give weight to geography, at a time where that mattered more. We didn't account for the shrinking of the nation. Direct democracy doesn't solve for that (imo).

Imo it was a sorta incentive (bribe) to get smaller states to join the union. Now that they're all in and we settled the whole "can a state secede?" question with the civil war, we don't need to keep bribing the hillfolk.

As for shaven apes etc.. That's an argument against democracy in general, not just our particular form of representative democracy. I will be honest and say i would defintely prefer a dictatorship as long as it were my kind of dictator... But that's the trouble with dictators.. It's always a massive gamble.

But as long as you are on board with our type of democracy, understand that the electoral college doesn't deprive the shaven apes of their power. It just favors the shaven apes from the country over the ones from the city. And rumor has it half the country apes aren't even quite shaved.

It is so impossible to get people to answer this question honestly.

#notalldemocracy

**** that Thomas Jefferson We the People bull****.

You know who should rule? ****ing nobody.

Goddamn people are obsessed with pretending they’re a part of something that could really happen.

That’s a real option?

When you beat off do you only fantasize about people you’ve already ****ed?

Or you kill a few billion people first

Only leave behind completely unambitious lazy ****s so we can collectively stop doing ****.