The Case for Dumping the Electoral College
Trump’s Presidency, and the risk that it will recur despite his persistent unpopularity, reflects a deeper malignancy in our Constitution that must be addressed.
www.newyorker.com
A case to dump electoral college
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
So I guess the natives are worried that Trump might win, so let's resurrect this one again. The MSM is shameful.
Now do you reply to this if there was an incumbent dem in wh and a right to center publication had same premise?
Sure, wrong is wrong. Are you able to determine that?
The Case for Dumping the Electoral College
Trump’s Presidency, and the risk that it will recur despite his persistent unpopularity, reflects a deeper malignancy in our Constitution that must be addressed.www.newyorker.com
All part of the plan. They are laying the groundwork.
The Resistance War Games a Post-Election Civil War › American Greatness
Consider yourselves warned, America. Cancel the Election Night party and forget the long-awaited moment when George Stephanopoulos announces, in the late hours of November 3, the official winner.
amgreatness.com
The Case for Dumping the Electoral College
Trump’s Presidency, and the risk that it will recur despite his persistent unpopularity, reflects a deeper malignancy in our Constitution that must be addressed.www.newyorker.com
That article is nothing more than losers lament.
The Electoral College is one of the brilliant ideas by the founders. It gives good minority representation to the smaller states. I wouldn't think you of all people would be against minority representation.
That's just not true though in regards to the outcome of the presidential election.
Elections are pretty much decided by voters in Ohio and Florida.
Look at ad spending by state. Biden and Trump will ignore more states than they invest in because the states are not competitive. That's what the founders wanted?
and for context, I expect democrats will be able to flip Texas to blue within the near future.
If that happens, they can lose PA, OH, MI, WI and Florida and still win.
The concept made sense for a period of time but has outlived its usefulness.
Popular vote works for whichever party doesn’t care about legal immigration and which will give as many handouts as possible to get a vote in consideration thereof. It’s very simple regardless of whether you feel it’s right or wrong
Politicians will pander to the issues that get them votes. They only need to care about 10 states or so to win. That seems like a pretty bad flaw in the design.
They only need to worry about swing states. The others matter too but they’re not purple states.
But none of that is because of the Electoral College, just current trends.
And if you dump the electoral college, NY city, LA, San Francisco and other populated cities will decide who becomes President and the "flyover states" will have no say at all.
Republicans in deep blue states and democrats in deep red states have no impact on the election at all. We can make their votes actually matter with popular vote.
Terrible assumption. That means those states will always vote that way. State demographics are changing. North Carolina for instance is much less red than they used to be.
Unless you live in a purple state, your vote really just doesn't matter that much. Not saying things can't change, but as it stands today there are pockets of the country where people don't really get a say in the presidential election which discourages turnout.
Why should they have to though? Why should a republican in New Jersey have to work to have their vote count as much as a republican in Ohio?
One of the reasons the founders wanted the electoral college was because the public was uninformed and many parts of the country did not have access to the resources needed to get informed. While I am sure we can have fun with the uninformed piece... at least we can probably all agree that lacking access is no longer a valid reason for this system?
Not to say popular vote isn't flawed at all... Anything will have flaws, but the reasons for the electoral college just aren't there anymore.
A Republican in NJ should try to engage others in why their platform is more beneficial for the state and help to nominate candidates that resonate. Are you suggesting that people should vote party lines without paying any attention to the platform and the background of the person running for the position? That would be the highest form of ignorance.
We have too much info, with much of it misinformation - so the initial reasons for electoral college still seem relevant
No.... I am not suggesting people vote on party lines.
If you want to vote for a republican in NJ - your vote is worth very little.
If you want to vote for a republican in Florida - your vote is worth a much more significant amount.
Not sure why the person in NJ should have to work much harder than the person in Florida for their votes to count the same.
If you feel living in NJ is that important to you, than putting in the work is not too much to ask. And nothing is forever. The swing states are swing states at this point in time. Maybe those with their heels dug in in a heavy read or blue state get disgusted at some point with the way their states are being run.
What if we went to a congressional district Electoral College instead of a state Electoral College?
Also doesn't really make sense to me.
We get our representation through our districts.
My vote for my congressman counts as much as those in my district. My vote for senator counts as much as those in my state. My vote for president does not count as much as those in my country.
The electoral system should be kept. Straight popular vote is not what we should be moving towards. However, the electoral college should Be amended. As it stands now, states like Idaho, Montana and the Dakota’s have an overabundance of influence as opposed to a State like NJ. Those four states combined have a population of a 1/3 of NJ. We only have 14 votes Electoral votes. Yet these four states combined have almost the same amount of votes In the electoral college as does NJ. At 13.
Does the amount of electoral votes need to increase to better reflect population? I think it does. I don’t pretend to know not to fix the electoral college. But, things should be tweaked.
Does the amount of electoral votes need to increase to better reflect population? I think it does. I don’t pretend to know not to fix the electoral college. But, things should be tweaked.
That's a feature, not a bug. We are the UNITED States of America. Gives smaller states more say. Also, candidates should have to campaign in all states and then represent and lead all states once elected. Now because presidents don't always do that is not reason to change the process.
isnt the president himself on record saying it was stupid and should be dumped? very adamant about it believe me!
in our capitalistic society we should assign college votes based on how much a state is worth. or GDP.
List of U.S. states and territories by GDP - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
that should right the ship. were definitely giving way to much voice to states that dont deserve it. i agree its useful but isnt america all about the dollar?
The electoral college is one of the many genius ideas from our nation's founders. It should never change.
Yup, in 2012, further proof that the Electoral College is the right thing.
What does this mean? Are you saying because Trump said it was bad once, that means it's really good?
So since he more recently likes the Electoral College, is it now bad?
The electoral college and the number of representatives have changed since the Constitution. But the Constitution was vague about how many representatives there should be. It obviously has increased during the years as our country has grown. the current number of 435 representatives was set in the 1920’s. Not by the Founding fathers. Clearly, this number needs to be enlarged to grant more representatives to states like NJ Which has representatives taken away from the. Seemingly the last three census.
Why? States like the Dakotas and Montana never decrease in their representatives although their population remains flat or very low. the huge states like Texas and NY are already underepresented. So states like NJ burden the brunt of having an electoral taken away so that it can go to a growing state like Arizona or North Carolina. Increasing the number of representatives will balance out fairness without taking way smaller states say. Small states should have a say but their say is too heavily weighted.
Do you realize that the Senate was designed to give each state equal representation? That's why states like MT, WY, ND have 3 electoral votes -- 2 senators and 1 representative. The House of Representatives is apportioned based on population, which is why a state like California has 55 electoral votes -- 2 senators and 53 representatives.
Uhm. of course. I was talking about increasing the amount of representatives in the House. Not like it hasn't been done in the past or did you think that the founding fathers set the limit at 435. You can still apportion by population but increase the amount of representatives to better reflect the population growth in the US over the past 100 years.
The limit wasn't set by the founding fathers but is set by law. You'd need a new law to change that.
And nothing wrong with changing the law. But there has to be a recognition that the electoral college needs to be tweaked. You said that the electoral college was a genius idea that should not be changed. But the fact is that it has changed over the years. And it now needs to be changed again.
The electoral college is the same concept it always was. The numbers and apportionments changing doesn't mean the concept has changed. Two different topics.
It has been statewide winner take all for the most part (NE/ME exceptions) since Andrew Jackson was president.
No defense against one party rule if Dems adopt open borders and provide all immigrants
welfare benefits which they obviously plan to do.The road to socialism and we can be as poor
as other socialist countries.Got to keep electoral college to have any hope of keeping America
as we have known it.
welfare benefits which they obviously plan to do.The road to socialism and we can be as poor
as other socialist countries.Got to keep electoral college to have any hope of keeping America
as we have known it.
Looking forward to ShoreGuy's predictable next post: Expanding the Supreme Court to 12 Justices. It will be a must-read, I'm sure.
