Should the electoral college be done away with?

[Cratic3947]

@dantes

Nope. The founders saw populism as a threat to the nation. They never intended someone as hopelessly uninformed as him to be president.

He didn’t win the majority…lol! Master Beto is a populist.

[dantes]

I think you’re exactly what the founders had in mind with they made the electoral college.

[Auto129]

I’m not okay with it, but the only way to fight it and get rid of it is to turn the tables on those who benefit from having more important votes than others.

All it takes is one stadium of liberals to turn most of these states purple. A few more and they’ll be solid blue.

[FreeAndClear]

That’s fine not everybody who has supported the elimination is a socialist. Hardly any of them are

[lulubee]

I’m wish washy on this because I’m certain is a dozen years or so, after the old farts who vote R’s are dead - the younger generations, who are much more progressive, will change the landscape. We are already seeing the effect in states like Virginia, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado. Texas will be next.

[Optrader]

@BlueTex

@zantax

Look at who supported the EC and who didn’t, the division wasn’t between free and slave states it was between large and small states.

Are you trying to argue that the northern states wanted to include slaves in the population count? When you say large and small, are you discussing population or area?

The north wanted them to count for tax purposes, but not for representation, the south wanted them to count for representation purposes, but not taxes. This was the reason for the compromise.

[BlueTex]

@Optrader

The north wanted them to count for tax purposes, but not for representation, the south wanted them to count for representation purposes, but not taxes. This was the reason for the compromise.

What “tax purposes”?

[Optrader]

@SixFoot

If we do that, are they going to continue to vote pay raises for themselves, or will the people they represent actually have a say?

You realize they no longer vote because every time they do, it reminds the public how worthless they are. They voted years ago for automatic raises. Same result for them, less attention from us. Just another reason to have even MORE of them, isn’t it?

[SixFoot]

Might as well add more senators while we’re at it.

[highroller]

Everything is Socialist when you don’t agree with it! Didn’t you know?

[PAmoderate37]

@Auto129

I’m not okay with it, but the only way to fight it and get rid of it is to turn the tables on those who benefit from having more important votes than others.

All it takes is one stadium of liberals to turn most of these states purple. A few more and they’ll be solid blue.

All you need is for 1 million liberals from California to suck it up and move to Texas!

[dantes]

I think a lot of people are, much to the ire of the “true Texans”, which makes me chuckle.

[Optrader]

@adroit

Electors are proportional to population, so don’t large states still have the advantage over small states? That argument doesn’t quite follow.

As Dante’s pointed out, it was so the plebes didn’t pick the POTUS.

In theory yes. The popular vote result determines the electoral vote result, but not always as recent elections have shown. That’s why the debate. Is not liking the outcome reason enough to do away with it?

[highroller]

They’re already doing that. And Nevada. And Arizona. And Colorado. And Virginia.

[DOLOOP]

@BlueTex

@Optrader

The north wanted them to count for tax purposes, but not for representation, the south wanted them to count for representation purposes, but not taxes. This was the reason for the compromise.

What “tax purposes”?

I’m curious about this as well.

[lulubee]

@PAmoderate37

@Auto129

I’m not okay with it, but the only way to fight it and get rid of it is to turn the tables on those who benefit from having more important votes than others.

All it takes is one stadium of liberals to turn most of these states purple. A few more and they’ll be solid blue.

All you need is for 1 million liberals from California to suck it up and move to Texas!

I know several people - even in my own family - who have moved to Texas. They are all in Austin, naturally - but that doesn’t matter in Presidential elections. And they don’t become Republicans just because they moved.

Denver is also becoming one of the cities young people are now moving to. Son’s company just opened offices there - bringing an influx of Massachusetts voters.

[zantax]

@adroit

@dantes

Because the EC is becoming the only way they can win.

They’d have to completely change the party if the EC went away.

The hilarious thing is imagine if the EC had done kind of what the founders intended and decided not to elect Trump. Can you imagine the firestorm from the right aimed at the EC in that scenario? Nah, I’m sure all those vehemently defending the EC in this thread wouldn’t change their tune at allllll.

I said at the time, if the EC was functioning as intended they would have refused to seat Trump or Hillary. Neither of them were fit to hold the office.

[Guilds]

@zantax

It didn’t, other than it was also a compromise to get northern states to sign on.

The Southern states were fearful that they would be overwhelmed in the House by the “large” states—Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. To increase their representation, the Southern states wanted their large number of slaves to be included in the population count. Of course, the large states did not want to relinquish their numerical advantage in the House. Many delegates argued slaves should not be counted at all—after all, they said, slaves are property, not persons.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-three-fifths-compromise-rationalizing-the-irrational/

[zantax]

@SixFoot

Might as well add more senators while we’re at it.

Oh some democrats are working on that too, they want to grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico and some even think they can break California up into six states.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@Optrader

The founding fathers created the electoral college so that big cities would not be the deciding factor in elections. They recognized that the needs and desires of rural communities might be drastically different then those of big city dwellers. For the vast majority of our history, the electoral vote has aligned with the popular vote with few exceptions. Those exceptions favored Republican candidates. It seems to me like the exceptions were more due to better campaigning by Republican candidates, who went after the electoral votes, rather than flaws or unfairness in the electoral system itself.

I’m shocked then, that the socialists running for high office are talking about abolishing the electoral college!!! Doing so would disenfranchise a majority of States as the votes of the citizens of those states would be nullified by just a small handful of big city states.

Does the results of the electoral votes that won the election for Republicans cause you to believe the electoral system should be done away with? If the results had gone the opposite way and won elections for Democrats, would your opinion be different?

I think your state should use an electoral college system (instead of popular vote) to elect it’s senators.