On-Topic Clinton Will Win Popular Vote - Time to Scrap Electoral College

[Kulindahr]

The Electoral College should be tweaked, but not scraped. The population centers shouldn't get to speak for everyone.

Exactly -- scrapping the electoral college would lead to a form of feudalism where the urbanites treat the rest of the country as serfs.

If the EC ever gets scrapped, the smallest two dozen states should immediately secede so they can have a country where they matter.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ SaskGuy is talking about something similar to our system of federal elections. The House of Commons is divided into 'seats', and each seat represents an MP (Member of Parliament), and each MP represents a 'riding'. Ridings are divisions in each province and territory roughly proportional to population. Of course, population varies greatly from province to province, but there are provisions in the constitution to even out the representation as evenly as possible.

The number of seats in Parliament vary from election to election. Currently, there are 338 seats and the Liberals, under Justin Trudeau, hold 182 of them. With 95 seats, the Conservatives are the Official Opposition. The NDP (New Democratic Party) hold 44 seats, the Bloc Québécois hold 10, and the Green Party and Independent hold 1 each. They, too, are Opposition. However, all of the Opposition combined hold only 151 seats, which is less than the Liberal Party. The Liberals have a majority government.

One province can have any combination of representation. Generally, no province is entirely Liberal or Conservative or any other party. That is what SaskGuy was talking about.

Still, even a majority government doesn't give assurance that the Liberals can do what they want. New legislation must be passed first in the House of Commons before going to the Senate for final approval.

It's not a perfect system but it works for the most part, and the electoral system is being reassessed to make it better than the 'first-past-the-post' system we currently have.

By the way, the house has various galleries as well, including one for the press and one for the public. I went there on a school trip back in the 60s. It was quite an experience.

That would improve things immensely in the U.S.

An idea that might be worth trying, now that we have the internet, would be to have a list of candidates and everyone could sign up for one they liked -- but the moment a given candidate hit the number of people a U.S. Representative represents, no more people could sign up to support him or her. That way every representative would actually represent the same number of people, and no one would be stuck with a Representative who doesn't represent them.

 

[Kulindahr]

And yet we vote for every other office by plain vote on a state level. Population centers determine the vote because that's where people are. It's that simple. You don't get extra representation just because you live somewhere small and rural. In conservative parlance that's called reverse discrimination.

Yes, we do vote for every other office that way -- and it isn't good for liberty.

This blind worship of democracy as though it is some sort of divine system nauseates me.

 

[Kulindahr]

The smaller states will never agree to change the Constitution. Period. Get used to it.

Of course they won't -- they don't want to be serfs.

Unfortunately in Oregon our state senators aren't geographically based, so we're well on our way to serfdom for those in rural areas.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope. I will never give up a cause which I know is right.

Making urbanites the ruling class is no more right than making whites the ruling class.

 

[Kulindahr]

Direct popular vote as well the electoral college they way it is currently set up, allow the big states to control the election. They way to fix is for each state to award its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state. You would still have to get 270 to win but no candidate could win an entire state. Each candidate would earn the electoral vote of each state according to how the people of that state voted. The 270 total then must come from the people across the country, not just a few states. It would truly be fair and every individuals vote would count toward your states electoral vote total unless you voted for a nobody. If this concept were in place in 2000 the Florida fiasco would not have happened because only 1 electoral vote would have been contested instead of the whole state.

I want to be clear here. This concept is on a state-by-state basis not a national basis. In Missouri Trump would have won 7 electoral votes and Clinton 3.

Also, this is to discuss what might be a possible way to improve the electoral system. I am fully aware this is not going to happen so do not disparage the idea by telling me it won't happen. I know it won't happen. The point is, I think it would be a good way to correct the imperfections in the electoral college system and make for a fair election that represents the people of the country. But no one wants that, do they?

Actually it could happen easily -- how a state's electors vote is up to the state. The trick would be to start with smaller states and get them to go along. Eventually the big states would give in (not in our lifetimes, probably....).

 

[Kulindahr]

the states are at liberty to apportion their electoral college votes by the popular vote. Nebraska and maine do that now. But the [strike]democrats[/strike] duopoly control the most populous states and they want their [strike]democrat[/strike] majority to control all the state's ec votes.

ftfy

- - - Updated - - -

^ Wow, the democrats control Texas and Florida? You could have fooled me.

If the electoral college were changed to make every state apportion their electoral vote by popular, not congressional district, true popular vote, it would make the election fair and truly represent the will of the people. But neither party wants that so it won't happen. So it is academic discussion about would work if it were implemented. Not what realistically can happen.

Step one: do away with congressional districts and vote statewide by party.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

Clinton won the popular vote. That is democracy, not the antiquated electoral college.

The electoral college is meant to guard liberty, so unless you believe liberty is outmoded.....

 

[mikey3000]

This is why you need the Electoral College.

 

[Benvolio]

This is why you need the Electoral College.

View attachment 1188360

Worse, the most recent immigrant voters are concentrated in the blue area voting against the longer established Americans.

 

[nycguydowntown]

Part of the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the most populous states from being too dominant. In any event, and amendment requires 75% of the state legislatures. The less populous states are not going to vote to be dominated by the more populous states. Get over it.

Lol I'm sure if the Dem had lost the popular vote twice in 16 years and won the election you'd get over it.
It's a dumb system and prevents people from voting---if it were popular vote---or the actual vote---people's vote in a blue state or red state would really matter. Now if you're a Dem in Alabama why bother?

 

[Benvolio]

Lol I'm sure if the Dem had lost the popular vote twice in 16 years and won the election you'd get over it.
It's a dumb system and prevents people from voting---if it were popular vote---or the actual vote---people's vote in a blue state or red state would really matter. Now if you're a Dem in Alabama why bother?

With out the EC, why would anyone bother to vote outside NY, CA, IL.

 

[Alnitak]

Making urbanites the ruling class is no more right than making whites the ruling class.

81% of the country lives in and amongst cities. We're the majority and majority rules in a democracy. It's really that simple.

 

[mikey3000]

But that ideology is the basis for all injustices all around the world, all throughout history. With that logic, gays do not deserve equal rights because they are not the majority.

 

[Kabluey]

But that ideology is the basis for all injustices all around the world, all throughout history. With that logic, gays do not deserve equal rights because they are not the majority.

We have to rely on our elected officials to do the right thing, not to single out minorities, be they foreigners, country folk or gay people as whipping boys to be both neglected and blamed.

Right now we've got the ultra wealthy funding campaigns intended to make poor Americans blame each other for things that are outside the common person's control.

 

[Kulindahr]

81% of the country lives in and amongst cities. We're the majority and majority rules in a democracy. It's really that simple.

Preferring democracy over freedom as you do is vile.

This is not a democracy. It was never meant to be a democracy. It should never be a democracy. It is a Republic, because only a Republic can protect liberty.

The proper response, in order to protect liberty, to elimination of the electoral college would be for all the non-urba parts of the country to secede and immediately stop delivery of anything from rural areas to the cities.

 

[Kulindahr]

We have to rely on our elected officials to do the right thing, not to single out minorities, be they foreigners, country folk or gay people as whipping boys to be both neglected and blamed.

Right now we've got the ultra wealthy funding campaigns intended to make poor Americans blame each other for things that are outside the common person's control.

Relying on elected officials is foolishness. The whole point of having a Constitution is that no officials, elected or otherwise, can be trusted to preserve liberty. U.S. history proves this, because thanks to elected officials our liberties have been chipped away at steadily.

 

[Benvolio]

But that ideology is the basis for all injustices all around the world, all throughout history. With that logic, gays do not deserve equal rights because they are not the majority.

Certainly not all the injustice' in fact, very few. Most injustices are committed by authoritarians. Majority rule is not perfect, but anything less is tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

Certainly not all the injustice' in fact, very few. Most injustices are committed by authoritarians. Majority rule is not perfect, but anything less is tyranny.

No, majority rule is also tyranny -- the tyranny of the mob, a force that always destroys civilizations.

The only way to protect liberty, to guard against tyranny, is the rule of a constitution -- and that means as it is written, else whoever is in power gets to twist it to their ends, and that is tyranny.

 

[Kabluey]

No, majority rule is also tyranny -- the tyranny of the mob, a force that always destroys civilizations.

The only way to protect liberty, to guard against tyranny, is the rule of a constitution -- and that means as it is written, else whoever is in power gets to twist it to their ends, and that is tyranny.

I live in a country without a formal constitution, but with modifiable human rights laws, international treaties and conventions, case law and conventions traceable to things like the Magna Carta.
The rights and freedoms of citizens here are arguably greater than in the US.

A written constitution can be a document frozen in time. Unless written during a time of enlightenment it can be used as a tool for oppression.