About the inherent unfairness of the Electoral College

Discussion in 'Campaign & Political Reform' started by LafayetteBis, Jun 24, 2018.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From here: Electoral Vote vs: Popular Vote

    I fail to see how the advantages of the EC outweigh the disadvantages. Besides, any "winner-take-all" voting is intrinsically unfair and should be illegal. In fact, it is NOT EMPLOYED in local/state voting (to my knowledge)!

    ON-LINE VOTING ANYONE?

    After-all, the vote for the presidency of any nation is a nation-wide vote. It should be subject to national rules of voting, not any ruling whatsoever within a state. Moreover, it is obvious that it would help ENORMOUSLY for a good number of reasons that the US had a National Identity Card based upon a Social Security Number given at birth.

    In that manner, Americans could vote whenever they want (within the given period), wherever they want - and even one day by Internet. And for Internet voting (local, state, national), they would need only confirm their residence annually and give some means of identification-verification upon sign-in to the voting process.

    For further information regarding on-line voting, see the WikiPedia article here: Electronic voting by country
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2018
  2. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Your argument is based upon the belief that higher voter turnout is beneficial, and that eliminating the EC could be done without repercussions.

    A popular vote demands that ONLY eligible voters are counted for the purpose of Federal representation. The GOP strongly supports one man, one vote, and the DNC strongly opposes, because it drastically shifts Congressional power away from urban areas into rural ones.

    Not to mention that high voter turnout specifically means a significantly less informed electorate.
     
  3. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,135
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One issue STATES decide how to divide the Electors and will note before the Presidential Elections States would vote for the Electors or appoint them or some combination then THEY would decide the President and Vice President by voting they didn't have anyone directly voting for President for a period of years. The same for Senators to Congress they were just as likely appointed by the State in some way the Representatives were elected by voters. So IF California wanted to divide the Electors based on the popular vote as closely as possible between the candidates they could the authority to do so though resides with the States and most clearly opt to do the voter take all choice to make their States regardless how small relevant to at least get some Presidential interest. If Idaho's votes were split do you think anyone would bother showing up if they were a party for one elector when the big population States would still matter more by a long shot.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  4. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are 50 states not 1. This should correct your problem with the electoral.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
    yabberefugee likes this.
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,074
    Likes Received:
    9,130
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There certainly is an inherent unfairness but it also serves a very stabilizing role in the structure of American democracy.

    Since it's a winner-take-all system in each state, there's no incentive for any individual state to try to suppress election results (minority votes) within their jurisdiction.
    That would lead to frequent disputed election results.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  6. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're a union of states.
    Too bad, so sad
     
    Empress likes this.
  7. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Just because people are butthurt about the election isn't cause to suggest that an open mob-rule style of government is "fair." Mob rule is extremely dangerous and unstable at its core.
     
    squidward likes this.
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Didn't say that it should be eliminated.

    Only that it should report the popular vote within the state by means of an otherwise useless mechanism called the "Electoral College".

    I guess you suppose because Donald Dork was "your guy" the fact that he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE is of no consequence whatsoever.

    The US is the only major so-called "democracy" on earth in which that travesty of civic-justice can occur ...


    Bollocks again!

    You badly need a course in Civics!

    The essence of all True Democracy is respect for the popular vote - whether you like that means of voting or not.

    Bollocks again.

    The fundamental precept of any democracy is "one-citizen one vote" and no debate whatsoever regarding that rule. Nor any manipulation of that rule by a patently unlawful manipulation of the popular vote, which is the principle rule applied for all other political elections in the country without any exception whatsoever - except of course the presidency ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  9. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A poster posted that it is not the popular vote, but 50 states that select presidents.

    Due to each state standing alone, since each state has a complete government of it's own, it is a unit. At first I did not approve the winner takes all in states, but got to thinking over that the state is just one unit so naturally to act as a single unit, it should be winner take all. I am more in sympathy with solving the two states that do not use winner take all than in being radical about the founders system. They knew what they created was units of voting blocks.

    We in CA can't take our voters and add them to voters in Maine or Florida nor neighbor states. The system as a federal system is set up to count states as a total voting block.

    Congress counts this state by state.
     
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In no real democracy on earth does each internal demarcated state "stand alone" in the election of the Executive head of government. The vote is national in nature.

    None, nada, zilch, rien, kien, tipota ...
     
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "Wall" in Berlin is in NO WAY COMPARABLE with a wall across the length and breadth of the Mexican border.

    You are DREAMING ... it is a useless and extremely costly exercise in the mind of a despot.

    Much better is the process in place (but enhanced):
    *No non-American in the US has a right to either be there or remain there without permission/documentation by the US government.
    *Any such individuals should be expelled ipso-facto if they do not have proper identity cards. No trial necessary, unless they are making a bad-habit of entering illegally the US.
    *We start posting job-openings for migrant workers on job-sites in Central and South America. Interested parties respond by requesting an Entry Visa at the local American Embassy.
    *Unqualified workers and their families are given no visa.

    It would help if the US adopted, like every other modern country, a national Identity Card:
    *Based upon the Social Security number for all bonafide citizens issued at birth and available at an age of 10 years. (It would be based upon one's ADN determined at birth.)
    *The card would be made available to all foreigners who became citizens having completed the normalization process in the US.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  12. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're a republic, a union of states. We're not a democracy. And we dont need a long fallen empire to tell us what works best.
     
    AlphaOmega likes this.
  13. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we arent a democracy...we arent a democracy, we arent a democracy
     
    MJ Davies and squidward like this.
  14. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,296
    Likes Received:
    4,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was intentionally undemocratic. That's a feature, not a bug. The Founders wanted to disperse the power of the country. They did not want any one group, be it the judges, the executive branch, the legislative branch, the states, or even the people to have all of the power. This nation was founded to be a nation of 13 semi-independent states. For that reason, the states each have two votes in the Electoral College.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  15. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,296
    Likes Received:
    4,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, IIRC, two states (may be three) don't have a winner-take all system. They choose the electors by House district (one per), and the winner of the overall popular vote in the state gets the extra two. The states can choose how they choose their electors.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Feature not a bug". Yeah, and cows jump over the moon.

    It is apparent that you've never taken a class in Civics. Had you done so, you'd know that such a simpleton response was dead wrong.

    The balance of power in any democracy was intended to avoid the manipulation of a monarchy - in which resided all power.

    And, what have we today? The three elements of our democracy - Executive, Legislative and Judicial - are all in the hands of just one party.

    We are, therefore, living in a monarchic-like regime ...

    PS: From the Center for American Progress: The State of Civics Education
    - excerpt:
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,296
    Likes Received:
    4,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course I've had civics. And, no, having all three elements of our republic (we are not and have never been a democracy, but are a representative republic). I'm right, the purpose was to divide the power, and even in the hands of the same party, they interfere with each other, otherwise a same party president would have free will to do what he/she wants. They haven't in recorded history.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  18. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,982
    Likes Received:
    7,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you suppose that those who despise our sitting President are always quick to use other nations to something we should model our selves after? Sorry folks....our system is exceptional! We are a huge geographical area with many different interests. Those heavily populated areas of the coasts have little in common with the rest of us. Our Founders were very wise in setting it up to where they don't rule over us.
    Your idea we are a "Democracy" is typical of the.elitist education system we have. Until the early 20th century, we were known as a "Representative Republic" that is until the elite educators started toying with minds full of mush.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  19. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the sort of nonsense that the Rabid Right lovers to purvey.

    Some how (miraculously) the US is the greatest-nation-on-earth despite the fact that it has had for two centuries a conditionally unfair electoral system?

    Wow, have you go your American history wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Democracy, of which you seem to be ignorant, is simply this from here):
    What you fail to understand is that "state" means both the "Wisconsin" and "France" because there is no fundamental difference in the above definition for both.

    You are misguided to think that a state-state in the US has a different set of principles to which it adheres. It doesn't. It has a basic set of laws that are allowed because they are necessary to the function of the local entities. When they transgress national law, their laws are overturned by a superior court. (Ie., the Supreme Court.)

    We are first one nation, and secondarily a combination of states - which is why all Americans have the right to decide where they shall live. And, more or less,
    within the same or similar set of legal principles throughout ...

     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,851
    Likes Received:
    3,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn’t a national popular vote winner-takes-all though? Maybe you should be arguing for a different system, maybe some kind of single transferable vote concept that could encourage more than just major party candidates and help evolve the US away from the divisive “them vs us” binary politics. I suspect going to straight popular vote would only serve to increase those divisions.

    That said, I do think that if you’re going to keep the Electoral College, the district or some kind vote-share based allocation of electors would make more sense that state-wide winner-takes-all.

    Just no. The security of the technology isn’t there (and arguably never can be) and the voter faith in the technology certainly isn’t. I saw a good YouTube video on the topic recently that I could track down if you’re interested.

    On a personal note, I also think there is something to be said for anyone who wishes to perform the most important and significant act of voting, especially at the level of national leadership, being expected to actually take an active decision to get up, go out and do it. On-line voting has the major risk of minimising it to the level of liking a Facebook post (obvious exceptions for those literally incapable of getting out to vote of course).
     
  21. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In any intelligent country, where the population has an adequate secondary-schooling, voters know what they want. Unfortunately, in the US, the manipulation of voters is non-democratic.

    But, if voters vote for a nut-head like Donald Dork, there is simply no discussion. The consequence must be accepted and the country moves on.

    But that does not necessarily mean onward and upward. The upward bit is the hard part when a nation puts nincompoops into the White House ...
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    129,852
    Likes Received:
    50,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump disagrees

    [​IMG]
     
  23. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,851
    Likes Received:
    3,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you looking for a serious discussion about electoral systems or just an excuse to fling childish insults at Trump? I can't stand the man either but I've better things to do with my time than that.
     
  24. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cuz if we were a democracy, the leechers would have already stripped everything from the productive, a long time ago, and we'd be a crappy dump with everyone driving our version of the Yugo.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  25. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,982
    Likes Received:
    7,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    1. Yes Americans can decide where they can live. That is why soooo many refugees from Kalifornia come to Arizona and other states to flee the socialistic system there.
      It's why New York is having people leave in droves because of high taxes and being told what size soft drink they can order. Legal principles do vary. In Virginia they're talking gun confiscation. In Arizona, we don't worry about that ever happening.
     

Share This Page