By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What do you think would be the best outcome for the US Electoral College?

 

What result is best?

Trump maintains lead and is voted in. 99 54.40%
 
Clinton gains lead and is voted in. 37 20.33%
 
Both candidates are below... 46 25.27%
 
Total:182
sethnintendo said:
NightDragon83 said:
The electoral college was designed for this very purpose... to ensure that all states have a say in the election and that the largest population centers in the country (in today's case, NY and CA) don't control the outcome of every general election.

 

Republicans can have their state offices and governors. Face the facts. The electoral college mainly benefits the Republicans. They say your vote counts but if your state goes against you then your vote doesn't count. Guess what? My vote has never counted and I refuse to vote again till it is gone.

Well not voting never changed anything, you know.  Demographics and voting patterns in this country have a habit of changing.  It wasn't all that long ago that the south voted reliably Democrat, or "Dixiecrat" if you will, and the northeast and west coastal states routinely went Republican.

And Democrats have benefitted from the EC in the past as well.  Kennedy won the popular vote by a mere ~113,000 votes in 1960 for example, which if the election result was based on popular vote total it would have required a massive nationwide recount to certify it, which would have possibly taken months and thrown the country into chaos.  However, Kennedy beat Nixon handily in EC votes, so the point is moot.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network

The thing is Cali gets rewarded it usually is 1/5 of the votes needed to form a winning margin to get elected.



sethnintendo said:
pokoko said:
Good luck to those hoping the Electoral College system is changed or abolished. The Republican party is in complete control of Congress and it's a system that works to their advantage.

 

Yea the republicans know this and would never move to get rid of it. Only way is for democrats to make it part of their platform and move to abtain majorities in House, Senate and win the Presidency. That would be the only way it goes away.

Nope, it would take more than that.  Just controlling the House, Senate and Presidency isn't enough to change the Electoral College system.

In order to change the Electoral College system, you need an amendment to the US Constitution, as the Electoral College system is described in detail in Article 2 of it.

In order to pass an amendment, you must first pass it through the Congress and Presidency. Next, you need 3/4 of the states (38) to ratify the amendment within a 7 year period.  Good luck with that !



Let me furthur this discussion....

Here are the facts: Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 306 to 228 in the Electoral College vote. That's a huge margin.

To put it in perspective, back in the 2000 election, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 271-266 in the Electoral College. That election was much more closer than this one, and yet Bush went on to be President. Take note all
you protesters!



I think its obvious. The idea that someone who gets majority vote on a presidencial election doesn't get to rule is something only (old) american's could think up. That is not democratic, especially coming from the "leader of the free world". Its a bit ironic.

With that said, i wish a 3rd candidate would be voted in because Trump is going to be a disaster to the US and the world.

LadyJasmine said:
I think the worst outcome is putting Hillary in...

That would mean civil war

Civil war from what is mostly interior and less technological advanced states? ^^

I see what you mean! Its could happen.

Aura7541 said:
The point of the electoral college is to avoid mob rule or a 'tyranny of the majority'. It shouldn't be abolished, but it should be reformed in some way.

Tyranny of the majority? As in opposed to Tiranny of the minority? I don't understand the concept of "tyanny of the majority". It's called Democracy! The majority SHOULD win! Thats the whole concept of every vote beeing equal.



Around the Network
Nem said:

I think its obvious. The idea that someone who gets majority vote on a presidencial election doesn't get to rule is something only (old) american's could think up. That is not democratic, especially coming from the "leader of the free world". Its a bit ironic.

With that said, i wish a 3rd candidate would be voted in because Trump is going to be a disaster to the US and the world.

LadyJasmine said:
I think the worst outcome is putting Hillary in...

That would mean civil war

Civil war from what is mostly interior and less technological advanced states? ^^

I see what you mean! Its could happen.

Aura7541 said:
The point of the electoral college is to avoid mob rule or a 'tyranny of the majority'. It shouldn't be abolished, but it should be reformed in some way.

Tyranny of the majority? As in opposed to Tiranny of the minority? I don't understand the concept of "tyanny of the majority". It's called Democracy! The majority SHOULD win! Thats the whole concept of every vote beeing equal.

hmm mostly likely they will do well intially with good generals but likely lose in the end due to resources lol



Nem said:

I think its obvious. The idea that someone who gets majority vote on a presidencial election doesn't get to rule is something only (old) american's could think up. That is not democratic, especially coming from the "leader of the free world". Its a bit ironic.

With that said, i wish a 3rd candidate would be voted in because Trump is going to be a disaster to the US and the world.

LadyJasmine said:
I think the worst outcome is putting Hillary in...

That would mean civil war

Civil war from what is mostly interior and less technological advanced states? ^^

I see what you mean! Its could happen.

Aura7541 said:
The point of the electoral college is to avoid mob rule or a 'tyranny of the majority'. It shouldn't be abolished, but it should be reformed in some way.

Tyranny of the majority? As in opposed to Tiranny of the minority? I don't understand the concept of "tyanny of the majority". It's called Democracy! The majority SHOULD win! Thats the whole concept of every vote beeing equal.

Of course it's fair! The whole point was people in urban regions will vote differently from people in the countryside, but the countryside seems unable to hold the same amount of people. How do you give the people in the rural and sparsely populated flyover US the same weight and firepower as those in the cities? You destroy the boundary between both to ensure the urban population has less power. 

The reason Clinton had more votes was solely because of one state: California. Since Trump didn't even bother campaigning for the 55 electoral votes California packs, the state was lost in a mudslide and almost everyone decided to vote for the crook instead. In other words, the Hollywood celebrities pack the most electoral votes, but they pack far more people than this. 



AsGryffynn said:
Nem said:

I think its obvious. The idea that someone who gets majority vote on a presidencial election doesn't get to rule is something only (old) american's could think up. That is not democratic, especially coming from the "leader of the free world". Its a bit ironic.

With that said, i wish a 3rd candidate would be voted in because Trump is going to be a disaster to the US and the world.

Civil war from what is mostly interior and less technological advanced states? ^^

I see what you mean! Its could happen.

Tyranny of the majority? As in opposed to Tiranny of the minority? I don't understand the concept of "tyanny of the majority". It's called Democracy! The majority SHOULD win! Thats the whole concept of every vote beeing equal.

Of course it's fair! The whole point was people in urban regions will vote differently from people in the countryside, but the countryside seems unable to hold the same amount of people. How do you give the people in the rural and sparsely populated flyover US the same weight and firepower as those in the cities? You destroy the boundary between both to ensure the urban population has less power. 

The reason Clinton had more votes was solely because of one state: California. Since Trump didn't even bother campaigning for the 55 electoral votes California packs, the state was lost in a mudslide and almost everyone decided to vote for the crook instead. In other words, the Hollywood celebrities pack the most electoral votes, but they pack far more people than this. 

Err...? So you want to give countryside people more power so they rule over the ones in the coast? And this is fair and democratic how?

I think the whole problem is the perception of interior vs coast. It's the same country! This is not unique to the USA. It doesn't mean people on the coast aren't more or less important than the ones in the interior. Everyone is the same regardless of where you live. 1 person = 1 vote. Equality. That is what democracy is.

And quite honestly i'm sick of listening to the Hillary is crooked BS. No, Trump is crooked! And anyone with a shred of common sense could've seen that.



Thank God for those ole' geezers of 240 years ago. They gave us the Declaration of Independence. They gave us the Constitution of the United States. They gave us the Bill of Rights - those first 10 amendments to that very Constitution. Including among those rights was: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms ! Semper Fi !



Nem said:
AsGryffynn said:

Of course it's fair! The whole point was people in urban regions will vote differently from people in the countryside, but the countryside seems unable to hold the same amount of people. How do you give the people in the rural and sparsely populated flyover US the same weight and firepower as those in the cities? You destroy the boundary between both to ensure the urban population has less power. 

The reason Clinton had more votes was solely because of one state: California. Since Trump didn't even bother campaigning for the 55 electoral votes California packs, the state was lost in a mudslide and almost everyone decided to vote for the crook instead. In other words, the Hollywood celebrities pack the most electoral votes, but they pack far more people than this. 

Err...? So you want to give countryside people more power so they rule over the ones in the coast? And this is fair and democratic how?

I think the whole problem is the perception of interior vs coast. It's the same country! This is not unique to the USA. It doesn't mean people on the coast aren't more or less important than the ones in the interior. Everyone is the same regardless of where you live. 1 person = 1 vote. Equality. That is what democracy is.

And quite honestly i'm sick of listening to the Hillary is crooked BS. No, Trump is crooked! And anyone with a shred of common sense could've seen that.

Hillary is the main character on the Good Wife.

 

A likely good natured women but is surrounded by so much corruption she is dirty by association.