Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Electoral College

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Keep it 100%.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:54:53 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

There are reasons to both keep and end the electoral college system. Keeping it requires candidates to pay attention to less populated states, as they have a heightened importance in the electoral college. It also requires that candidates have multiple bases of support, as that is more important than having one large base. But the electoral college also suppresses voter turnout in non-swing states and it also allows for the possibility that a non-popularly elected politician can become president.

I don't know if it would be better to keep it or not, but you are right that it seems to be rather poor taste that Democrats are railing against the electoral college only now.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 11:02:22 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Watch Jackson's initial comments.

"Needing" the EC, if only putatively, acts as another underline of the US' structural problem. The big one.

Namely, that the concerns brought up by the flyovers are valid. And you can apply it to a lot more than the urban/rural divide. Which I say as someone who wants a lot more democracy than we have now.

When group interests and needs are so divergent that they merit "protection" from majority opinion...aka the supposed point of democracy...then we're clearly talking about separate groups with separate interests.

So why are they flying under the same banner?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:02:16 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 10:54:53 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

There are reasons to both keep and end the electoral college system. Keeping it requires candidates to pay attention to less populated states, as they have a heightened importance in the electoral college. It also requires that candidates have multiple bases of support, as that is more important than having one large base. But the electoral college also suppresses voter turnout in non-swing states and it also allows for the possibility that a non-popularly elected politician can become president.

Indeed. I guess my biggest concern with a direct popular vote is placing too much stock in what the populace wants. Democrat candidates generally (whether accurately or not) garner the support of big cities (which contain the majority of the population, it's been that way since the 20s). Republican candidates normally win in less urban areas. But, should we place all of our stock in the popular vote just because there are more people who live in the cities? I don't think so. We're becoming increasingly polarized as far as urbanization goes, and to switch to a direct popular vote at this point is essentially to neglect anything the non-urban population embodies. It's a tricky situation.

I don't know if it would be better to keep it or not, but you are right that it seems to be rather poor taste that Democrats are railing against the electoral college only now.

Entirely agree.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:05:03 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 10:32:38 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Keep it 100%.

I agree. But, I'd love to hear your reasoning. Why?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 12:56:55 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I'm split on this particular issue. I understand arguments for both sides. What I would like to see is electors given out proportionally.
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:46:40 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 12:56:55 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I'm split on this particular issue. I understand arguments for both sides. What I would like to see is electors given out proportionally.

If you are saying what I think you are, I'd care to place a counter for you to weigh that if a state wants something in majority, it should act as an entire state in order to express the common view of that state to maximum potential. Why would you want the person to get elected that only represents 20% of your states population? I think there is a fair argument that a state should be all in or all out.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:52:31 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Look, Trump got more electoral votes than Clinton, so he's the new president, this is just something you liberals have to get over.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:37:01 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 2:52:31 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Look, Trump got more electoral votes than Clinton, so he's the new president, this is just something you liberals have to get over.

Read the OP. I'm not a liberal, and I support the electoral college (though not simply because Trump won).
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 4:49:35 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 10:05:03 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/20/2016 10:32:38 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Keep it 100%.

I agree. But, I'd love to hear your reasoning. Why?

Because the interests of states with major cities should not override the representation of states without them. It's a federation of states - each state should retain sovereignty.

I'm a fan of the articles of confederation, honestly
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 4:56:35 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 4:49:35 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/20/2016 10:05:03 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/20/2016 10:32:38 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Keep it 100%.

I agree. But, I'd love to hear your reasoning. Why?

Because the interests of states with major cities should not override the representation of states without them. It's a federation of states - each state should retain sovereignty.

Alright, I can understand that.

I'm a fan of the articles of confederation, honestly

Interesting. Would you, though, support at least some revision to them? The Constitution was an overhaul, but the Articles surely needed some adjustments.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 5:00:01 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I can see both sides, but I think it should be abolished.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 5:04:24 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Its sole purpose is to protect republicans and give rural Americans a way to usurp the popular vote.

Abolish it.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:31:04 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I think that the electoral system should be kept, but electoral votes are awarded proportionally based on how much of the vote each candidate gets rather than the winner-take-all system..... This ties the EC more directly to the popular vote, allows for 3rd party candidates to have a better shot at getting votes, while preserving the slight advantage given to rural states that the EC provides them.

Proportional voting for the EC will also dramatically reduce the battleground state issue that causes maybe 4 or 5 states to receive 50% or more of attention from campaigns, which I would like to see happen, since I dont think Florida and Ohio should constantly be determining the outcome of elections
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:32:42 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Here's what I am referring to: http://www.debate.org...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:53:47 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.
--
Most Americans don't actually realize the original intention of the Electoral College. Read Federalist 68 by Alexander Hamilton, and you'll know what the original intention was. And no, it wasn't to give the small States a greater say in the electoral process.

Second, the 'general ticket' method of allocating the electors was also not the original manner intended. Each State was supposed to be divided into several districts, in which the people would choose one or two electors (max.); these electors would then choose the President and Vice-President.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 2:46:40 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/21/2016 12:56:55 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I'm split on this particular issue. I understand arguments for both sides. What I would like to see is electors given out proportionally.

If you are saying what I think you are, I'd care to place a counter for you to weigh that if a state wants something in majority, it should act as an entire state in order to express the common view of that state to maximum potential. Why would you want the person to get elected that only represents 20% of your states population? I think there is a fair argument that a state should be all in or all out.

The point is that the electors are supposed to 'deliberate' and vote for suitable persons as the President. This was the original intention of the College. It wasn't that you voted for a particular person. In the example you cited, if a party received 20% of the vote, then that party would be part of the deliberation with other parties; and they would come together to vote.

Second to that, there is a process that allows for selection of the President and VP; i.e. by the House and the Senate respectively. In this regard, the electoral college only served to 'filter' out the candidates.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 6:31:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I think that the electoral system should be kept, but electoral votes are awarded proportionally based on how much of the vote each candidate gets rather than the winner-take-all system..... This ties the EC more directly to the popular vote, allows for 3rd party candidates to have a better shot at getting votes, while preserving the slight advantage given to rural states that the EC provides them.

That'd be interesting, but I'm wary of rounding votes.

Proportional voting for the EC will also dramatically reduce the battleground state issue that causes maybe 4 or 5 states to receive 50% or more of attention from campaigns, which I would like to see happen, since I dont think Florida and Ohio should constantly be determining the outcome of elections

Yeah. This year it was Wisconsin/Pennsylvania.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 5:04:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Its sole purpose is to protect republicans and give rural Americans a way to usurp the popular vote.

It was originally instituted to protect Republicans? I don't buy it. I think, though, letting only the cities vote (which is essentially what a popular vote would do) is fair, either. I'm not heralding the EC as a fail-proof system, but I don't think a popular vote is a fair alternative.

Abolish it.

Democrats already have a built in advantage in the EC, so I don't think it's fair to claim it only "protects Republicans." The "blue wall" was destroyed by Trump this year, though.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:54:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 5:00:01 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I can see both sides, but I think it should be abolished.

Why? Because Clinton and Gore lost?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:27:00 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 2:41:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:31:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I think that the electoral system should be kept, but electoral votes are awarded proportionally based on how much of the vote each candidate gets rather than the winner-take-all system..... This ties the EC more directly to the popular vote, allows for 3rd party candidates to have a better shot at getting votes, while preserving the slight advantage given to rural states that the EC provides them.

That'd be interesting, but I'm wary of rounding votes.

I ran into that hiccup with ultra small states that only had 3 electoral votes, which is why I would be open to the idea of expanding the number of votes in the EC up to 800ish, so that the smallest state would have 5 electoral votes rather than 3. With 3 votes, a winning candidate needs 67% of the vote to justifiably get the 2 that are awarded to the winner, which is difficult to reach. If small states are given 5 to work with, then a winner only needs to hit 60%, which is far more likely and even routine for small rural states like the Dakota's or Montana.

Proportional voting for the EC will also dramatically reduce the battleground state issue that causes maybe 4 or 5 states to receive 50% or more of attention from campaigns, which I would like to see happen, since I dont think Florida and Ohio should constantly be determining the outcome of elections

Yeah. This year it was Wisconsin/Pennsylvania.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 5:03:04 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 3:27:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:41:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:31:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I think that the electoral system should be kept, but electoral votes are awarded proportionally based on how much of the vote each candidate gets rather than the winner-take-all system..... This ties the EC more directly to the popular vote, allows for 3rd party candidates to have a better shot at getting votes, while preserving the slight advantage given to rural states that the EC provides them.

That'd be interesting, but I'm wary of rounding votes.

I ran into that hiccup with ultra small states that only had 3 electoral votes, which is why I would be open to the idea of expanding the number of votes in the EC up to 800ish, so that the smallest state would have 5 electoral votes rather than 3. With 3 votes, a winning candidate needs 67% of the vote to justifiably get the 2 that are awarded to the winner, which is difficult to reach. If small states are given 5 to work with, then a winner only needs to hit 60%, which is far more likely and even routine for small rural states like the Dakota's or Montana.

I see.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 5:05:56 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

If the electors all decided not to vote for Trump, and to vote for Hilary, or someone else, Trump would have lost also by every extent of the law. Indeed, the Electoral college intends for the electors to be independent voting actors in the whole process.

In reality the margin in the election was 100,000 votes. In that if Trump had won 100,000 fewer votes in 3 states he would have lost.

However, at the same time, Clinton is currently 1.5 million+ votes ahead nationally, predicted to be up to 2 million votes when everything is certified.

If someone can provide a legitimate reason why 100,000 peoples voices are more important than 1.5 million simply because of where they live, please explain it; but thus far I can't think of one.

Most importantly, the electoral college is a 300 year old process designed for a different type and style of campaign, and election; that has been bastardized to work with the pseudo-national party orientated political campaigns we see today and neither does what it was originally intended to do; nor is it particularly relevant to campaigns today.

The biggest arguments I've seen made, are concerning giving individual states more of say in the choice of presidents. Which is fairly retarded given the electoral college allows national campaigns to systematically ignore the vast bulk of states and all their individual voters.

In reality, a system where there is a benefit to Democrats campaigning in Texas, and Republicans campaigning in New York, or California has a much better chance of allowing currently under represented communities in such states being involved in the campaign.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 5:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 5:03:04 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:27:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:41:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:31:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

I think that the electoral system should be kept, but electoral votes are awarded proportionally based on how much of the vote each candidate gets rather than the winner-take-all system..... This ties the EC more directly to the popular vote, allows for 3rd party candidates to have a better shot at getting votes, while preserving the slight advantage given to rural states that the EC provides them.

That'd be interesting, but I'm wary of rounding votes.

I ran into that hiccup with ultra small states that only had 3 electoral votes, which is why I would be open to the idea of expanding the number of votes in the EC up to 800ish, so that the smallest state would have 5 electoral votes rather than 3. With 3 votes, a winning candidate needs 67% of the vote to justifiably get the 2 that are awarded to the winner, which is difficult to reach. If small states are given 5 to work with, then a winner only needs to hit 60%, which is far more likely and even routine for small rural states like the Dakota's or Montana.

I see.

Interestingly enough, under the system I propose, Trump still would have won the election, though it would be by a much thinner margin than the current tally. The system I propose certainly isnt perfect in this sense, but it still more accurately reflects the popular vote than the current system does
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 2:54:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 5:04:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Its sole purpose is to protect republicans and give rural Americans a way to usurp the popular vote.

It was originally instituted to protect Republicans?

I didn't say that it was originally instituted to do anything. I said it's "sole purpose," in a present day context: to protect Republicans.

The original purpose was a check on majoritarian impulses, but that was also when technology was very different and a popular vote was not a realistic thing to tabulate. That's the practical reason.

The political reason was because the uneducated voters' impulses needed to be tailored against savvy political judgment.

I don't buy it. I think, though, letting only the cities vote (which is essentially what a popular vote would do) is fair, either. I'm not heralding the EC as a fail-proof system, but I don't think a popular vote is a fair alternative.

Abolish it.

Democrats already have a built in advantage in the EC, so I don't think it's fair to claim it only "protects Republicans." The "blue wall" was destroyed by Trump this year, though.

Dems do not have an advantage in the electoral college. The "blue wall" is not an advantage in any sense of the word.

The "advantage" that the GOP has is reflected in the fact that low-population rural states have a disproportionate level of influence relative to their actual populations. So, a voter in Wyoming has about five times as much power in the big picture as a voter in California.

It may "seem" otherwise, but the practical reality is that the Democrats have been consistently screwed by the electoral college since 2000.
Tsar of DDO
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 9:52:17 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 6:55:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:54:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 5:04:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Its sole purpose is to protect republicans and give rural Americans a way to usurp the popular vote.

It was originally instituted to protect Republicans?

I didn't say that it was originally instituted to do anything. I said it's "sole purpose," in a present day context: to protect Republicans.

Ah, okay. I won't argue with that, it does seem as though Democrats have been getting the short straw.

The original purpose was a check on majoritarian impulses, but that was also when technology was very different and a popular vote was not a realistic thing to tabulate. That's the practical reason.

Yes. But, would you say people, on average are significantly more informed about politics now than they were then? Sure, they're knowledgeable about candidates and such, but I would say the average voter knows next to nothing about politics.

The political reason was because the uneducated voters' impulses needed to be tailored against savvy political judgment.

I get you.

I don't buy it. I think, though, letting only the cities vote (which is essentially what a popular vote would do) is fair, either. I'm not heralding the EC as a fail-proof system, but I don't think a popular vote is a fair alternative.

Abolish it.

Democrats already have a built in advantage in the EC, so I don't think it's fair to claim it only "protects Republicans." The "blue wall" was destroyed by Trump this year, though.

Dems do not have an advantage in the electoral college. The "blue wall" is not an advantage in any sense of the word.

I was referring to safe states... states that can safely be called for each party without even knowing the results. I just mentioned that the "blue wall" theory was nullified this time around.

The "advantage" that the GOP has is reflected in the fact that low-population rural states have a disproportionate level of influence relative to their actual populations. So, a voter in Wyoming has about five times as much power in the big picture as a voter in California.

I agree with this. The power of states like Wyoming relative to popular counts are unparalleled.

It may "seem" otherwise, but the practical reality is that the Democrats have been consistently screwed by the electoral college since 2000.

2000 and 2016 highlight that.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 10:23:20 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 9:52:17 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:55:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:54:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 5:04:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Its sole purpose is to protect republicans and give rural Americans a way to usurp the popular vote.

It was originally instituted to protect Republicans?

I didn't say that it was originally instituted to do anything. I said it's "sole purpose," in a present day context: to protect Republicans.

Ah, okay. I won't argue with that, it does seem as though Democrats have been getting the short straw.

The original purpose was a check on majoritarian impulses, but that was also when technology was very different and a popular vote was not a realistic thing to tabulate. That's the practical reason.

Yes. But, would you say people, on average are significantly more informed about politics now than they were then? Sure, they're knowledgeable about candidates and such, but I would say the average voter knows next to nothing about politics.

I don't have enough information to say what the comparative knowledge base was between voters, in 1789, versus now. What I do know, though, is that the level of knowledge is irrelevant to the issue of whether we should keep the electoral college.

The reason their level of knowledge is irrelevant is because whereas in 1979 this country was exclusively a Republic, it is now not a Republic but closer to a direct democracy where and to the extent that electors are legally obliged to cast their ballots in the electoral college based on what the popular vote was in their state. This is different than in 1789, when electors were UNBOUND, meaning that they could vote for whoever they wanted.

The original concerns (some of which are articulated very cogently in the Federalist Papers) were majoritarian populism, and, state-based loyalty. Because of the fragmented and decentralized structure of government organized under the Articles of Confederation, the framers were uniquely afraid that each state would produce its own candidate and no individual would vote for any candidate other than the candidate from their state.

The other main concern was reflective of the particular economic state of affairs in the newly centralized colonies at the time, as well. Specifically, the framers were concerned that large states with larger populations would overwhelm small states in the area of economic regulations, tax burdens, and the like. This concern is the same one that drove pushing the bicameral legislature structure which produced both a house, and a senate (as a compromise between the New Jersey Plan, and the Virginia plan).

The basic idea was that big states would want trade policies that suited them, whereas small states would want different policies which protected their interests; or tax policies, etc. At the time, this was a reasonable concern because, first, there was no really "centralized" government in the form of a federal government as we now recognize it, and second, small states didn't want to surrender what, then, was what was valued as indispensable sovereignty with respect to the individual states' relations to one another.

That concern was buttressed by the fact that, at the time of the constitution's founding, there were TREMENDOUS differences between the states' economies. We hadn't industrialized yet, really, although the wheels for that evolution were in the works. Agriculture dominated, and Virginia was the economic center of the country. Those areas which had begun industrializing or which had vibrant costal trade based economies (New York, South Carolina, etc.) also were substantially more economically powerful than smaller states whose economies had not yet begun to take off (Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc.).

None of these institutional problems are the case, NOW. Rather their opposites are mostly true.

The political reason was because the uneducated voters' impulses needed to be tailored against savvy political judgment.

I get you.

I don't buy it. I think, though, letting only the cities vote (which is essentially what a popular vote would do) is fair, either. I'm not heralding the EC as a fail-proof system, but I don't think a popular vote is a fair alternative.

Abolish it.

Democrats already have a built in advantage in the EC, so I don't think it's fair to claim it only "protects Republicans." The "blue wall" was destroyed by Trump this year, though.

Dems do not have an advantage in the electoral college. The "blue wall" is not an advantage in any sense of the word.

I was referring to safe states... states that can safely be called for each party without even knowing the results. I just mentioned that the "blue wall" theory was nullified this time around.

Doesn't matter. There is no advantage the DNC has as a result of the electoral college. Aside from not gerrymandering the districts to protect their own corrupt political purposes (unlike the Republicans, who cheat at every possible instance... see generally the State of North Carolina), Democrats are still fighting with one hand tied behind their backs because of the extent to which rural and predominantly Republican voters command vastly greater power than major urban centers.

This is why Hillary Clinton can win the popular vote by a margin of MILLIONS of votes, and still lose the electoral college.
Tsar of DDO
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 4:11:54 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 10:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:52:17 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:55:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:54:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/21/2016 5:04:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Its sole purpose is to protect republicans and give rural Americans a way to usurp the popular vote.

It was originally instituted to protect Republicans?

I didn't say that it was originally instituted to do anything. I said it's "sole purpose," in a present day context: to protect Republicans.

Ah, okay. I won't argue with that, it does seem as though Democrats have been getting the short straw.

The original purpose was a check on majoritarian impulses, but that was also when technology was very different and a popular vote was not a realistic thing to tabulate. That's the practical reason.

Yes. But, would you say people, on average are significantly more informed about politics now than they were then? Sure, they're knowledgeable about candidates and such, but I would say the average voter knows next to nothing about politics.

I don't have enough information to say what the comparative knowledge base was between voters, in 1789, versus now. What I do know, though, is that the level of knowledge is irrelevant to the issue of whether we should keep the electoral college.

The reason their level of knowledge is irrelevant is because whereas in 1979 this country was exclusively a Republic, it is now not a Republic but closer to a direct democracy where and to the extent that electors are legally obliged to cast their ballots in the electoral college based on what the popular vote was in their state. This is different than in 1789, when electors were UNBOUND, meaning that they could vote for whoever they wanted.

The original concerns (some of which are articulated very cogently in the Federalist Papers) were majoritarian populism, and, state-based loyalty. Because of the fragmented and decentralized structure of government organized under the Articles of Confederation, the framers were uniquely afraid that each state would produce its own candidate and no individual would vote for any candidate other than the candidate from their state.

You are correct in this regard. The Founders created the electoral college to guard against men like Donald trump from being elected to office. If you had the recent election in its original form, Trump would've never been considered as a candidate.

It's also interesting that you refer to the changing nature of the American republic from a republic to a democracy. What you've missed is that the electoral college is also a crucial element in a separation of powers: having the president unelected by the popular vote was a means to prevent the encroachment of the federal government. An elected president legitimises the role of the president and provides impetus for a greater role of the President. In short if you believe in a SOP system then you shouldn't support a popularly elected presidency.

The other main concern was reflective of the particular economic state of affairs in the newly centralized colonies at the time, as well. Specifically, the framers were concerned that large states with larger populations would overwhelm small states in the area of economic regulations, tax burdens, and the like. This concern is the same one that drove pushing the bicameral legislature structure which produced both a house, and a senate (as a compromise between the New Jersey Plan, and the Virginia plan).

The basic idea was that big states would want trade policies that suited them, whereas small states would want different policies which protected their interests; or tax policies, etc. At the time, this was a reasonable concern because, first, there was no really "centralized" government in the form of a federal government as we now recognize it, and second, small states didn't want to surrender what, then, was what was valued as indispensable sovereignty with respect to the individual states' relations to one another.

That concern was buttressed by the fact that, at the time of the constitution's founding, there were TREMENDOUS differences between the states' economies. We hadn't industrialized yet, really, although the wheels for that evolution were in the works. Agriculture dominated, and Virginia was the economic center of the country. Those areas which had begun industrializing or which had vibrant costal trade based economies (New York, South Carolina, etc.) also were substantially more economically powerful than smaller states whose economies had not yet begun to take off (Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc.).

None of these institutional problems are the case, NOW. Rather their opposites are mostly true.

The political reason was because the uneducated voters' impulses needed to be tailored against savvy political judgment.

I get you.

I don't buy it. I think, though, letting only the cities vote (which is essentially what a popular vote would do) is fair, either. I'm not heralding the EC as a fail-proof system, but I don't think a popular vote is a fair alternative.

Abolish it.

Democrats already have a built in advantage in the EC, so I don't think it's fair to claim it only "protects Republicans." The "blue wall" was destroyed by Trump this year, though.

Dems do not have an advantage in the electoral college. The "blue wall" is not an advantage in any sense of the word.

I was referring to safe states... states that can safely be called for each party without even knowing the results. I just mentioned that the "blue wall" theory was nullified this time around.

Doesn't matter. There is no advantage the DNC has as a result of the electoral college. Aside from not gerrymandering the districts to protect their own corrupt political purposes (unlike the Republicans, who cheat at every possible instance... see generally the State of North Carolina), Democrats are still fighting with one hand tied behind their backs because of the extent to which rural and predominantly Republican voters command vastly greater power than major urban centers.

This is why Hillary Clinton can win the popular vote by a margin of MILLIONS of votes, and still lose the electoral college.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 4:56:21 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 5:02:30 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm interested in seeing the general opinion on the electoral college. Should it be left as it is? Should it be revised? Should it be ended and replaced with direct, popular elections?

If you think it should be left or revised -- do you agree with its principle?

Also, something regarding the electoral college that never ceases to irritate me is people who advocate for the termination of the electoral college now... but didn't before the election this year. I think it's being more of a poor sport about the way the election went this year to claim, and only now, that the electoral college should be ended. Just because Hillary, by every extent of the law, lost to Trump is an incredibly stupid reason to now support ending the electoral college.

Proportional voting to 5 decimal places or so of a states electoral votes. Thats what I see as something to consider if NPVIC fails.