The Problem With The Electoral College

Submitted by: auburnjunky 5 years ago in

Considering the time of year, everyone should watch this.
There are 54 comments:
Male 40,751
No! No! You`re right! How DARE you agree with me!!!

Link To Akuma-Chan page!

Why here? Because it`s cute! That`s why! It`s SFW.
0
Reply
Male 40,751
@HG: Why are you getting all pissy about this? You want me to comment on the rest of your mistakes? FINE!
At 5:44 of the video there`s a pie-chart (mmmm pie!) showing 22% yes vs 78% no as the vote outcome.
If you quibble with 0.09% I`ll smack you, so help me!!!
I SAID: that graphic is false because there`s NO way the entire rest of the USA would ALL vote against you.
MY POINT is that the graphic is full of poo.
YOU started talking about other stuff: "not 51% he said 50%+1" as if THAT makes a difference OR is related to my point? It`s not.
Why should I comment on it further?

Your other point was valid, he`s talking about one thing and not the other. However it`s also "moot" because my point was how he`s NOT talking about the other!
Get it yet?
I said: He`s not talking about X...
You said: Yeah, but he`s not talking about X...

What am I supposed to do? Argue that you`re right?
0
Reply
Male 9,762
5Cats

"It appears "reaading comprehension" has escaped you lately: I was refering to the video throughout my post. I know @AJ is a fine fellow who I usually agree with, obviously HE isn`t a libtard, but the guy who made the video clearly IS."

1. I know who you were referring to. I was pointing out that I don`t see this as a liberal / conservative issue and obviously neither does AJ.

2. I make it a point to try to respond to each and every point you make. But you simply ignore most of mine frequently. I gave you 3 counterpoints. You ignored two of them.
0
Reply
Male 40,751
[quote]This was posted by AuburnJunkey.[/quote]
@HG: It appears "reaading comprehension" has escaped you lately: I was refering to the video throughout my post. I know @AJ is a fine fellow who I usually agree with, obviously HE isn`t a libtard, but the guy who made the video clearly IS.

[quote]Then you have ~65% (~75% in the case of 4 parties) of the population OPPOSED to whoever won.[/quote]
@paperduck: happens in Canada a LOT! lolz! And they win with a "Majority" government no less!

Y`all can dislike the EC system, but it does have it`s advantages, as well as disadvantages, duh!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Squirlz: Exactly, Jefferson was correct. Technically, the old Soviet Union was a republic. Although the rules concerning elections were so strict that the only candidates you could really vote for were chosen by the communist party, it was still technically a republic.
0
Reply
Male 334
The USA once was a gleeming beacon of hope and they did a lot of good in the world. This should be pointend out and taken serious.
Just as much that at the moment, the USA is seen as one of the biggest warmongers in the world.
And it seems unfair that a country that once a symboo of freedom is now epitome for opression. And this has only been made possible by the current party system in the USA, where scruteny of the leaders is no longer an objective thing but part of the two party system.

It almost seems that different sides of the same system are faling over one and other to blame the other side of wrong doing, only to then have to parry a version of the same blame.

Changing this voting system will give room for more parties, and with that, break the polarizing democratic/republic rubish that is poluting the whole discussion. Oh and i only started with democratic out of alphabetical reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 334
i fear that this is what you get when you vote for someone who then votes for you, its not democracy, but it seems a bit like it.

the reall dificulty is though that if you go for a eall democracy, the two party system wont survive. Mind, i say difficulty, not problem. Cause this means that more parties need to talk with eachother and talk together. the good thing is that it stops polarisation of the ruling parties, the down side is that you can get a lot of splinter parties. And offcourse, the usa wont want something like that,, i mean,the only democracies in the world that have shown that this could actually work are socialistic. You know, like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany and a bunch of others that i could mention.

The real problem though is this. Those that want to lead should be scrutinized. Not cause they are bad, but they can turn bad.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
This is a weakness in democracy no matter how you slice it. His premise is there will always be 2 party elections. Let`s say there is a 3 or more party election (each about equal in popularity) and one wins. Then you have ~65% (~75% in the case of 4 parties) of the population OPPOSED to whoever won.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
5Cats

"Remember he`s counting 51% in the "win" states and 0.0% in the others? NOT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE!"

You have lost your mind. Of course it isn`t possible he states that quite clearly. He is just talking about mathematically possible. Plus he isn`t using 51% he is using 50% plus one person. Of course that isn`t possible either.

"Typical libtard fantasy world"

This was posted by AuburnJunkey. He is just as conservative as you, OldOllie, and MegRendel. This has NOTHING to do with conservative or liberal.

"Notice how he glosses over the other candidates who won with UNDER 50% of the total vote? Like... Clinton?"

There were 3 candidates. Clinton still got more votes than anyone else. He is showing circumstance where someone got more votes than anyone else and still lost the presidency.
0
Reply
Female 1,578
Yeah but can`t the electoral college just vote for whoever they want? Your vote doesn`t matter anyway
0
Reply
Male 40,751
SmutleyButt says Repost!

That gets AJ a catgirl!



A darn sexxy one! And a kitteh, and the joker too!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The electoral college prevents a the coming of a "Cesar" or "king" from a popular party.[/quote]

It`s interesting that you`d use that particular title.

When the Romans revolted against their monarchy (who weren`t even Romans), declared independence and established a republic, they put *extremely* strong checks and balances into their constitution to prevent anyone ever becoming de facto king, even with popular support. They really went all out about that. All power was split into different positions. Even the leadership position (consul - which didn`t have outright power anyway) was split between two people who had veto over each other on everything. The term of office was only 1 year and no-one could hold any senior position for consecutive terms.

And yet Caesar, leader of the popular party (literally - the populares) became de facto king anyway.
0
Reply
Male 40,751
5:44 Spot the falacy!
Here he says 21.91% voted FOR you, but those yet to be counted votes would NOT be 100% against you!
Even if ONLY 40% of the remaining votes were for you, you`d have 53% (apx) of the TOTAL VOTE!

Remember he`s counting 51% in the "win" states and 0.0% in the others? NOT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE!

Typical libtard fantasy world: make up the rules as you go along, eh?

5:50 Notice how he glosses over the other candidates who won with UNDER 50% of the total vote? Like... Clinton? (I`m sure there`s others too)

In Canada this happens ALL the time! The majority party doesn`t win close to half the votes!

So what is the point? To hear oneself whine and b1tch?
Idiot.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Richanddead: How, exactly, does the Electoral College prevent "the coming of a Cesar or king from a popular party"? I don`t see the connection. Nor, for that matter, did Jefferson: None of the founding fathers hated tyranny or the rule of kings more than he--and he *abhored* the Electoral College.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Firstly, America is not a pure Democracy or Ochlocracy and never has been. It is a Federal Presidential Constitutional Democratic Republic, which allows for an electoral college. The reason for the electoral college was not to empower certain states but to prevent "Mob Rule" as defined by Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau. If you think it is all outdated, ask yourself how many people join parties other than Democrat and Republican. The electoral college prevents a the coming of a "Cesar" or "king" from a popular party.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Sorry, MeGrendel, you are far off the mark.

"It must be acknowledged that the term "republic" is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
0
Reply
Male 8,538
HolyGod-"The system was designed 250 years ago for reasons that are no longer relevant."

The beauty of our system is that you can change it, IF enough people agree.

Get to work on it. I, for one, will fight it as I believe the system still have a reason for existing.

HolyGod-"Well said. "

That`s one of my least favorite failures in Logic (and it`s easy to make). I`d even go so far as to change it to `The concept of someone being elected when the majority OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THAT ELECTION didn`t vote for that person`, as some people who don`t vote in a particular election still consider themselves `voters`.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
MeGrendel

"And I put to you that EVERY President was `elected when the majority of the population didn`t vote for that person`."

Well said. I would change the comment to be: the concept of someone being elected when the majority of voters didn`t vote for that person
0
Reply
Male 9,762
MeGrendel

"the system was not designed to be a democracy, nor was the President ever to be elected by popular majority"

The system was designed 250 years ago for reasons that are no longer relevant. It no longer serves a purpose. It should change.

They didn`t design it because they didn`t want people to vote for president by popular election. People just couldn`t vote by popular election for reasons that today do not exist.

0
Reply
Male 8,538
patchgrabber-"the concept of someone being elected when the majority of the population didn`t vote for that person."

It`s not odd, it`s the way the system is designed.

And I put to you that EVERY President was `elected when the majority of the population didn`t vote for that person`. (seeing as usually not even HALF of eligible voters vote every election, which equals to less than 35% of the actual population.)

HolyGod-"No, we are both. And a bunch of other things."

But none of this changes the fact that all of the video`s arguments are invalid (i.e. bullpoo) based on the fact that the system was not designed to be a democracy, nor was the President ever to be elected by popular majority.

I could just as easily (and just a logically) argue that the Queen of England was not elected in a democratic manner.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
DromEd

"If this guy`s system was put in place CA, FL, TX and NY would represent 64% of the electoral votes needed to win where as of now they represent 54%. Imagine that. Win just four states and you`re well over halfway to becoming the president. "

WHAT? You may need to re-watch it. He advocates getting rid of the electoral college all together and getting rid of winner takes all states. He says it should just be a direct popular vote.

If EVERY person in California, New York, Texas, and Florida voted for a candidate it would only be 33% of the vote. Obviously that is never going to happen because the votes will be much closer to 50/50.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The 17th Amendment was a huge move towards representative democracy.[/quote]

It was also a huge blow to our federalist system.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
[quote]Were you aware that you could become president winning only 22% of the popular vote? Does that seem right to you? [/quote]


Yeah and you can spin numbers all kinds of ways.

In 08 Obama won with 53 % of the vote and 356 electoral votes. McCain got 46 % of the vote and 173 electoral votes. So Obama got 7% more individual votes but more than twice the electoral votes.

If this guy`s system was put in place CA, FL, TX and NY would represent 64% of the electoral votes needed to win where as of now they represent 54%. Imagine that. Win just four states and you`re well over halfway to becoming the president.

Just tossing out some figures.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
MeGrendel

"The idiot that made the video"

So let`s move past the hair-splitting of what definition or variation of qualifies in some way our government.

Were you aware that you could become president winning only 22% of the popular vote? Does that seem right to you?

Were you aware that one vote in one state is worth as many as 4 votes in another state? Does that seem right to you?

Does winner take all seem like a good system? If half the people minus one in a state vote against somebody should all the votes in that state be cast for that person?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Ollie: Yes, George Washington and the others didn`t want more power for the people, but rather to keep it for themselves and other rich people. But over the years your government has become more democratic in form. The 17th Amendment was a huge move towards representative democracy.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
OldOllie

"is not and was never intended to be a democracy"

It is true that we are not a direct democracy. But we are a representative democracy. That is the manner in which we elect our officials.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
Megrendel

Here are my copy and paste skills:

"Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."

Black`s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]OldOllie
"The ignorance is strong in this one."
The video or the comments?[/quote]
I was referring to the video, but many of the comments qualify as well.

The point is, the United States, is not and was never intended to be a democracy, which is nothing more than a polite word for mob rule.

Put another way, democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Representative democracy is 51 wolves and 49 sheep electing a lunch committee. The result under either system is the same: mutton stew.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Wow @MeGrendel, you must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

The reason it`s baffling to me isn`t because of how the system is designed, rather, it`s the concept of someone being elected when the majority of the population didn`t vote for that person. It`s not the logistics, it`s the concept.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
MeGrendel

HolyGod-"We are, however a representative democracy."

No, we are a Constitutional Republic.

No, we are both. And a bunch of other things.

A republic just states that the power derives from the people instead of a monarch. A constitutional democracy simply adds in that the laws supersede the direct will of the people or the elected officials. A federal republic states the division of power between the federal and local government.

None of these things, which we are, is mutually exclusive to a democracy. We elect our officials through representative democracy. Plain and simple.

"A Representative Democracy is an element of both the parliamentary system and presidential system of government. Examples of Representative Democracy are the UK (constitutional monarchy) and Germany (federal republic). "

Impressive. I can also copy and paste from wikipedia.
0
Reply
Male 8,538
HolyGod-"We are not a direct democracy."

We are not a direct democracy, we are not a oblique democracy. We are not a democracy at all. We are a Republic.

The idiot that made the video in no way ever acknowledged that fact. Thus he is spewing bull for other simpletons to complain about. He`s basically complaining that a system that is not a democracy does not work as a democracy.

That would be like me purchasing a pop-tart and complaining that it is a failure at being a Prime Rib.

HolyGod-"We are, however a representative democracy."

No, we are a Constitutional Republic.

A Representative Democracy is an element of both the parliamentary system and presidential system of government. Examples of Representative Democracy are the UK (constitutional monarchy) and Germany (federal republic).

While each state generally uses a Democratic Process to award Electoral Votes, this does not translate the US in
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] But the video shows how they still do campaign in a few regions. Seems like the solution doesn`t fix the problem.[/quote]

More or less, but the reason isn`t that they`re the most populated rather they`re the most pivotal. Even those regions tend to change over the decades.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
OldOllie

"The ignorance is strong in this one."

The video or the comments?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The ignorance is strong in this one.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
Megrendel

"Gee, and the only clue we had is that damned piece of paper that stated `The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government` Say it REAL SLOW. REEEPUUUUUBLIIIIC!!"

We are not a direct democracy. We are, however a representative democracy. That is how we select leaders. That is what this video is about. That is what everyone else is referring to in this thread.

We are also a federal republic. That is the power structure. The terms are not mutually exclusive and you, once again, are (to use your phrasing) a simpleton.
0
Reply
Male 8,538
HolyGod-"UNBELIEVABLE."

You have trouble believing that a Republic is not a Democracy?

Do you also have trouble believing that a Yugo is not a Lamborghini? (If so, I`ve got a Lamborghini I`d like to sell you for only $7,000).

patchgrabber-"The notion that someone can win with less of a popular vote is baffling."

Why is it baffling when the President of the United States has NEVER been elected based on popular vote.

carmium-"Who came up with this goofy system, anyway?"

People smarter than you.

NNoamfer-"You Americans are living in a lie, you are not a democracy."

Gee, and the only clue we had is that damned piece of paper that stated `The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government` Say it REAL SLOW. REEEPUUUUUBLIIIIC!!
0
Reply
Male 8,538
Okay, he gets it wrong in the first five seconds.

"In a fair democracy..."

As we`re a Republic, everything else in this video can be ignored as not relevent to the United States.

I realize the statement `The United States is a Republic` is very difficult for simpletons (like the guy in the video) to understand.

"This is not democracy. This is indefensible."

Only the first statement is correct. This is NOT democracy. Was not designed as a democracy. IS not a democracy.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@NNoamfer: No, they`re a republic. I`m not sure if there are any pure democracies out there; I doubt they`d work for a whole country.
0
Reply
Male 1,216
You Americans are living in a lie, you are not a democracy.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@cajun: But the video shows how they still do campaign in a few regions. Seems like the solution doesn`t fix the problem.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
madest

"Yeah blame the system when your party has a crappy candidate and lousy ideas."

Dude. That has nothing to do with this post.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Basically, the idea is that you elected people to elect the president for you, like a congressman for a day.[/quote]


Which is why I started complaining about attaching candidates` names to the ballots. It shouldn`t be about who YOU want to govern, rather which entity do you trust to make that choice.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The notion that someone can win with less of a popular vote is baffling. [/quote]

It`s to encourage candidates campaign across the country rather than just one region in particular. Majorities by themselves can`t be trusted to safegaurd individual liberty.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
The system is outdated, but I think it had its merits 200 years ago. Basically, the idea is that you elected people to elect the president for you, like a congressman for a day.

In the 1700`s and early 1800`s it would`ve been difficult to have informed voters in most of the country. Voters in 1796 Kentucky would never have seen a presidential debate, most of them probably would have seen no pamphlets highlighting the issues and what not. I`m not even sure how aware some would be of an election, even. That`s probably why they established the electoral college initially.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@carmium: But first-past-the-post voting makes things difficult here. Plus we`re more susceptible to gerrymandering, which routinely happens.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Who came up with this goofy system, anyway?
North of the border, everyone votes for the representative of their choice (Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, independent, Bloc Quebecois, Green, crackpot, etc.) - or just the person they like, within their riding (district). Each riding represents one seat in Parliament, and the leader of the party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister. That`s it.
We still have a ridiculous appointed senate, but otherwise it`s a very simple system. Big cities have many ridings, vast tracts of sparsely populated north comprise one.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Electoral college has always confused me. The notion that someone can win with less of a popular vote is baffling.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Madest: Always finds a negative.

I come out against the system, he comes out for it.

I come out for it, he comes out against it.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah blame the system when your party has a crappy candidate and lousy ideas.
0
Reply
Male 9,762
I`ve seen this before. But I want everyone to see it. I show it to people any chance I get. UNBELIEVABLE.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Old news, still a good video. This is why I don`t vote, because it just really doesn`t matter. Politicians will and do say anything just to win.
0
Reply
Male 39,913

The electoral collages purpose is to override the voters in case the gov`ment doesn`t like who we elect. The electorate usually copy their states popular vote, but they don`t have to. They can vote the complete opposite of the popular vote if they choose.

Guess which vote actually counts in elections ...... not yours.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Link: The Problem With The Electoral College [Rate Link] - Considering the time of year, everyone should watch this.
0
Reply