By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TallSilhouette said:
AP finds most arrested in protests aren’t leftist radicals.

"Usefull idiots". Was this news to you? I bet this was news to most.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network

I'm not at all surprised that Trump supporters are attacking polling stations, or that Trump's trying to stop the vote count by suing.

Fat fascist with fake hair.



I've been wondering... What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College? It's probably the least democratic voting system I can think of.



G O O D B O I

LuccaCardoso1 said:
I've been wondering... What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College? It's probably the least democratic voting system I can think of.

The arguments are Republicans still want to get voted into office. Which is the same argument behind every single anti-democratic policy.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Georgia is now down to a difference of 463.

Last edited by OTBWY - on 06 November 2020

Around the Network
LuccaCardoso1 said:
I've been wondering... What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College? It's probably the least democratic voting system I can think of.

If it was based on the popular vote, the Reps would almost certainly rarely win again 



LuccaCardoso1 said:
I've been wondering... What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College? It's probably the least democratic voting system I can think of.

The electoral college wouldn't be quite so bad if not for 3 things that make it the absolute worst:

  1. Winner-takes-all in almost all states. If there were a proportional system or at least a highest averages system in place which would split up the vote of any state proportionally between all the persons running for office, it could actually be somewhat decent.
  2. The 3 electoral votes minimum per state, which gives states with a low population way too much power as it currently stands. Doubly so as the electoral votes are calculated proportionally and then added 2 votes on top for everyone instead of doing it in one go, which further reinforces smaller states.
  3. The fact that you only vote for electors, which are not obliged to follow the people's vote.

Also, as far as I know, the electoral college is enshrined in the US constitution and thus exceedingly hard to get rid off.

My proposition for a temporary solution would be to expand the amount of electoral votes from 538 to something like 599. Not only would an uneven number help avoid a potential nightmare of having both candidates with the same amount of electoral votes, the expansion would mostly go to the bigger states and thus lessen the influence the states with a small population have by a lot and thus strongly weakening the impact of point number 2.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:
I've been wondering... What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College? It's probably the least democratic voting system I can think of.

The electoral college wouldn't be quite so bad if not for 3 things that make it the absolute worst:

  1. Winner-takes-all in almost all states. If there were a proportional system or at least a highest averages system in place which would split up the vote of any state proportionally between all the persons running for office, it could actually be somewhat decent.
  2. The 3 electoral votes minimum per state, which gives states with a low population way too much power as it currently stands. Doubly so as the electoral votes are calculated proportionally and then added 2 votes on top for everyone instead of doing it in one go, which further reinforces smaller states.
  3. The fact that you only vote for electors, which are not obliged to follow the people's vote.

Also, as far as I know, the electoral college is enshrined in the US constitution and thus exceedingly hard to get rid off.

My proposition for a temporary solution would be to expand the amount of electoral votes from 538 to something like 599. Not only would an uneven number help avoid a potential nightmare of having both candidates with the same amount of electoral votes, the expansion would mostly go to the bigger states and thus lessen the influence the states with a small population have by a lot and thus strongly weakening the impact of point number 2.

If you remove those three aspects, it would not be an electoral college anymore, it would just be popular vote but with the final numbers divided by x.



G O O D B O I

LuccaCardoso1 said:
I've been wondering... What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College? It's probably the least democratic voting system I can think of.

People just don't like change. IT's not about what's right vs what's wrong, it's about what's easy. Changing how they do voting can and would take a lot of work and have a lot of growing pains, and as we've seen in this election: Take the devil you know over the devil you don't. 



LuccaCardoso1 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The electoral college wouldn't be quite so bad if not for 3 things that make it the absolute worst:

  1. Winner-takes-all in almost all states. If there were a proportional system or at least a highest averages system in place which would split up the vote of any state proportionally between all the persons running for office, it could actually be somewhat decent.
  2. The 3 electoral votes minimum per state, which gives states with a low population way too much power as it currently stands. Doubly so as the electoral votes are calculated proportionally and then added 2 votes on top for everyone instead of doing it in one go, which further reinforces smaller states.
  3. The fact that you only vote for electors, which are not obliged to follow the people's vote.

Also, as far as I know, the electoral college is enshrined in the US constitution and thus exceedingly hard to get rid off.

My proposition for a temporary solution would be to expand the amount of electoral votes from 538 to something like 599. Not only would an uneven number help avoid a potential nightmare of having both candidates with the same amount of electoral votes, the expansion would mostly go to the bigger states and thus lessen the influence the states with a small population have by a lot and thus strongly weakening the impact of point number 2.

If you remove those three aspects, it would not be an electoral college anymore, it would just be popular vote but with the final numbers divided by x.

It would be a regional breakdown.

It would also bring one of the few advantages of something like the electoral college: that you could have regional parties which would go under in a national vote, but get some seats if you have a fixed allocation of seats for each state.