Get rid of the antiquated biased Electoral College

[Pack Rat]

Each vote should count in all States.

In the Blue States of Illinois, New York and California, Republican votes do not matter and are wasted. The Electoral College is detrimental to the minority party in those States. The same goes for Red States of Alabama, Mississippi and Indiana, Democratic votes do not matter and are wasted.

The Electoral Colleges does not help the often used quote, "your individual vote counts and matter".

Why should any minority party individuals vote when the majority party are assured in certain States? Biden had approximately 7 million more votes than Trump, yet could of lost the election if 100,000 votes would of been cast differently in 4 States.

You guys/gals can continue discussing the legality of this and that, but one man, one vote needs to be considered in all States for the leader of the Free World.

[saxitoxin]

The president is not the leader of the American people, he is the leader of the union of states.

The people don't elect the president. The states elect the president. If anything, we should give each state one vote instead of weighting it on population.

[jimboston]

The president is not the leader of the American people, he is the leader of the union of states.

The people don't elect the president. The states elect the president. If anything, we should give each state one vote instead of weighting it on population.

Who/what would be the tiebreaker?

[Pack Rat]

The president is not the leader of the American people, he is the leader of the union of states.

The United States of America

[Pack Rat]

The president is not the leader of the American people, he is the leader of the union of states.

The people don't elect the president. The states elect the president. If anything, we should give each state one vote instead of weighting it on population.

Who/what would be the tiebreaker?

Exactly right, who/what.

[bigtoughralf]

The US and UK systems are the worst of both worlds. Not enough monopoly of power for a single strong party to be able to to engage in long-term work without the distraction of election cycles (e.g. China, Saudi Arabia) and not enough representation to deliver governments and decision-making that actually represent the plurality of opinion in their countries (e.g. Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands).

Obviously, you want a dictatorship form of government, like Russia, heh. Most of us would rather deal with a messy democracy and speak openly, instead of ending up falling out of a window.

No, I think he was pretty clear with what he typed. A dictatorship is one end of the spectrum that he mentioned, but he very clearly gave equal time to real democracies like Switzerland et al.

Right, and equality is what communists like. He decoded my message accurately.

[saxitoxin]

In the 1788 election only 6 of the 14 states had popular votes to choose their electors. Popular voting to choose the Electors was not universalized until 1864.

[Pack Rat]

In the 1788 election only 6 of the 14 states had popular votes to choose their electors. Popular voting to choose the Electors was not universalized until 1864.

Prior to 1789, The President and the Executive Branch was only ceremonial. There were a number of men who held the position of President, until George Washington finally became President in 1789.

[Votanic]

Prior to 1789, The President and the Executive Branch was only ceremonial. There were a number of men who held the position of President, until George Washington finally became President in 1789.

They must have been Pre-sidents.

[saxitoxin]

In the 1788 election only 6 of the 14 states had popular votes to choose their electors. Popular voting to choose the Electors was not universalized until 1864.

Prior to 1789, The President and the Executive Branch was only ceremonial. There were a number of men who held the position of President, until George Washington finally became President in 1789.

That's a bit of an urban legend. The 14 "presidents" before George Washington had the title of President of the Congress of the Confederation, not President of the United States, and were merely the speakers of the Confederation Congress.

[Pack Rat]

In the 1788 election only 6 of the 14 states had popular votes to choose their electors. Popular voting to choose the Electors was not universalized until 1864.

Prior to 1789, The President and the Executive Branch was only ceremonial. There were a number of men who held the position of President, until George Washington finally became President in 1789.

That's a bit of an urban legend. The 14 "presidents" before George Washington had the title of President of the Congress of the Confederation, not President of the United States, and were merely the speakers of the Confederation Congress.

How many presidents were there before Washington?
Peyton Randolph: Sep. 5 – Oct. ...
Henry Middleton: Oct. 22 – Oct. ...
Peyton Randolph: May 10 – May 24, 1775.
John Hancock: May 24, 1775 – Oct. 31, 1777.
Henry Laurens: Nov. 1, 1777 – Dec. ...
John Jay: Dec. 10, 1778 – Sep. ...
Samuel Huntington: Sep. ...
Samuel Huntington: Mar.

Urban legend? Sure thing dead boy.

[GaryDenton]

You know, this is why I shouldn't argue online. I get nonsense I find it difficult to address.

jimboston

- The fact that your “statistics” are based on a ridiculously small sample size. They have no validity.

- The fact that (even if the stats were valid) the voting patterns would change if the election system changed.

Please address these two points with counter-arguments or admit the whole basis for this thread is wrong.

My profession was market research, which is statistics and predictions based on statistics. Rarely demographics or other research. Timing of sales and store staffing at a multi-billion dollar company was based on my sales predictions using statistics.

Of all the points to attack, "statistics" is your weakest. I can't even see what this validity and statistics argument refers to.

And then you don't know the English definition of biased?

And your constant comments I am not supporting my arguments with links when I provide links, unlike the counter-arguments.

I should just ignore the nonsense. More people should.

Is this forum for gamers who like to drink and spout off whatever opinions they feel the need to spout off and I need to drink more if I am participating?

Back to the argument -

Yes, voting patterns will change based on how the winners are determined. I don't see any cogent arguments that would change the fact that a large majority of the people want to switch to the winner being the candidate who gets the most votes. A large majority of people are right, it should be.

The philosophical argument that states should determine the winner and not the people is not how our concepts of American democracy have evolved. Many of the evolving Supreme Court decisions are based on that everyone should have equal representation, one man - one equal vote. The electoral college should be subject to the same principles that now apply to all other elections, at one time States could give more representation to this group of farmers over here or this town of rich people here. That has been done away with. It remains in the ECV system.

The other arguments, like that democracy sucks because I don't want the people living on the coasts or the cities to have more say, just reveal old prejudices and also an ignorance of how most of the people are ignored in the current Electoral College system.

Some legal arguments, such as whether Congress has to approve the National State Compacts and what is the Supreme Court's position, are interesting. We have several years in which those will play out.

Hypotheticals about the states assigning their electors to the national popular vote winner would be rejected by the people of the states, that is not what is happening. More and more states are signing on.

I find they many of the opposing democracy arguments may not be current, much like the arguments now over the 14th Amendment being supposedly a plot by liberals to keep Trump out of office, ignoring that it is the ultra-conservative Federalist Society giving over 100-page briefs that Trump should be removed from the ballots. That will be another interesting Supreme Court decision with its majority of Federalist Society conservative members.

Interesting times. Sad times with Fascist ignorance being so prevalent but interesting.

[saxitoxin]

In the 1788 election only 6 of the 14 states had popular votes to choose their electors. Popular voting to choose the Electors was not universalized until 1864.

Prior to 1789, The President and the Executive Branch was only ceremonial. There were a number of men who held the position of President, until George Washington finally became President in 1789.

That's a bit of an urban legend. The 14 "presidents" before George Washington had the title of President of the Congress of the Confederation, not President of the United States, and were merely the speakers of the Confederation Congress.

How many presidents were there before Washington?
Peyton Randolph: Sep. 5 – Oct. ...
Henry Middleton: Oct. 22 – Oct. ...
Peyton Randolph: May 10 – May 24, 1775.
John Hancock: May 24, 1775 – Oct. 31, 1777.
Henry Laurens: Nov. 1, 1777 – Dec. ...
John Jay: Dec. 10, 1778 – Sep. ...
Samuel Huntington: Sep. ...
Samuel Huntington: Mar.

Urban legend? Sure thing dead boy.

Like I said, those are Presidents of the Confederation Congress, not Presidents of the United States.

It would be like saying "Joe Biden isn't the only president. There's also Fran Drescher."

(Fran being president of the Screen Actors Guild.)

[Pack Rat]

In the 1788 election only 6 of the 14 states had popular votes to choose their electors. Popular voting to choose the Electors was not universalized until 1864.

Prior to 1789, The President and the Executive Branch was only ceremonial. There were a number of men who held the position of President, until George Washington finally became President in 1789.

That's a bit of an urban legend. The 14 "presidents" before George Washington had the title of President of the Congress of the Confederation, not President of the United States, and were merely the speakers of the Confederation Congress.

How many presidents were there before Washington?
Peyton Randolph: Sep. 5 – Oct. ...
Henry Middleton: Oct. 22 – Oct. ...
Peyton Randolph: May 10 – May 24, 1775.
John Hancock: May 24, 1775 – Oct. 31, 1777.
Henry Laurens: Nov. 1, 1777 – Dec. ...
John Jay: Dec. 10, 1778 – Sep. ...
Samuel Huntington: Sep. ...
Samuel Huntington: Mar.

Urban legend? Sure thing dead boy.

Like I said, those are Presidents of the Confederation Congress, not Presidents of the United States.

It would be like saying "Joe Biden isn't the only president. There's also Fran Drescher."

(Fran being president of the Screen Actors Guild.)

It's very hard to have a discussion at the idiocracy level.

[jimboston]

You know, this is why I shouldn't argue online. I get nonsense I find it difficult to address.

You clearly find it “difficult to address” because you have a lack of intelligence. You can’t even comprehend the point made, so you’re unable to formulate a response.

jimboston

- The fact that your “statistics” are based on a ridiculously small sample size. They have no validity.

- The fact that (even if the stats were valid) the voting patterns would change if the election system changed.

Please address these two points with counter-arguments or admit the whole basis for this thread is wrong.

My profession was market research, which is statistics and predictions based on statistics. Rarely demographics or other research. Timing of sales and store staffing at a multi-billion dollar company was based on my sales predictions using statistics.

Of all the points to attack, "statistics" is your weakest. I can't even see what this validity and statistics argument refers to.

If you’re such an expert in statistics then you should understand that Sample Size is important. Sample size is not just a factor of percentage of the population… but additionally there is a bottom-end raw number that needs to be considered for a sample size, and therefore predictions or conditions based on that sample size, to be statistically valid and relevant.

You said that “in modern presidential elections” discrepancies between Popular Vote/Electoral College Victory favored the Republicans…. and that this proved a “Bias”. You stated this without identifying what you consider ‘modern’ but frankly that’s moot. What are you talking about? Two presidential elections where the Republicans won the Presidency but had a lower Popular Vote count? Maybe 3 at most?

That’s like flipping a coin twice and it landing on heads both times, and you claiming that this proves the coin is “biased” towards heads. You’re ridiculous.

And then you don't know the English definition of biased?

Really? We haven’t even discussed the definition. I’ll defer to whatever definition you want… even if it’s a made-up definition that no one else agrees with. The point is that your inference is not supported by the data available; and EVEN IF IT WERE SUPPORTED BY THE DATA the data DOES NOT factor in the counter-factual point that a change in how the winner of the Presidency is determines would certainly change the behavior of all “players”;
-> Voters would modify their vote patterns to account for the new victory conditions.
-> Presidential aspirants would modify their ad buys, rally locations, and other activities based on the new victory conditions.

These may be good… but they render the ability to “prove” what you are claiming impossible without some sort of controlled experiment.

Yes, voting patterns will change based on how the winners are determined. I don't see any cogent arguments that would change the fact that a large majority of the people want to switch to the winner being the candidate who gets the most votes. A large majority of people are right, it should be.

I agreed that the system may be “antiquated” and it may not reflect the current political situation/identify of our country.

I believe your claim it is “biased” is both false and unsupported.

The philosophical argument that states should determine the winner and not the people is not how our concepts of American democracy have evolved. Many of the evolving Supreme Court decisions are based on that everyone should have equal representation, one man - one equal vote. The electoral college should be subject to the same principles that now apply to all other elections, at one time States could give more representation to this group of farmers over here or this town of rich people here. That has been done away with. It remains in the ECV system.

I never made this argument; though it’s Fact that this was the original principle. Again, your point that we as a people/nation have evolved is valid. So now… without belittling the the original… explain;
1) Why we should make a change. (You have done this to some degree.)
2) How we would make the change. (The cockamamie Pact idea is not gonna fly.)(I think you’d get support from the voters to make the Constitutional Amendment… it I don’t see politicians acting on this idea for AT LEAST the next 20years, if ever.)

There are a LOT of things that the majority of voters would do if given the opportunity….
*Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College.
*Establish Term Limits for Senate and Congress.
*Establish a retirement age for Senate, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court.
*End the Abortion Debate ONCE AND FOREVER; setting a ban after 15 weeks except in the case of the health of the mother.
(You don’t need to allow for incest or rape after 15 weeks as presumably these could be addressed in that period.)

That vast majority of voters would support all these…but our elected officials do not and will not act on these unless forced to do so by the united will of the people. Unlikely given that we are as divided and confused as Congress.

Hypotheticals about the states assigning their electors to the national popular vote winner would be rejected by the people of the states, that is not what is happening. More and more states are signing on.

How can you say “that’s not what is happening”? Yes… more STATES are signing on… but does the average voter agree with this idea; and will they continue to agree when the vote goes against them? You’re making a big leap-of-faith into the reliability and will of elected officials to stand by their commitments and believes in the face of massive constituent outrage.

Interesting times. Sad times with Fascist ignorance being so prevalent but interesting.

Oh.. please explain who or what you believe is Fascist Ignorance. You’ve called me ultra-conservative… but I can tell you many of my truly Conservative friends think I’m liberal. People like you are so far to one end of the political spectrum you can truly judge the middle anymore.

I find it funny when I argue Center-Left positions… and I get tagged as ultra conservative. It’s very telling.

[bigtoughralf]

If you’re such an expert in statistics then you should understand that Sample Size is important. Sample size is not just a factor of percentage of the population… but additionally there is a bottom-end raw number that needs to be considered for a sample size, and therefore predictions or conditions based on that sample size, to be statistically valid and relevant.

This sounds like the sort of thing people say when they don't really grasp statistics but think saying 'sample size' enables them to dismiss any number they don't like.

[Pack Rat]

You know, this is why I shouldn't argue online. I get nonsense I find it difficult to address.

You clearly find it “difficult to address” because you have a lack of intelligence. You can’t even comprehend the point made, so you’re unable to formulate a response.

jimboston

- The fact that your “statistics” are based on a ridiculously small sample size. They have no validity.

- The fact that (even if the stats were valid) the voting patterns would change if the election system changed.

Please address these two points with counter-arguments or admit the whole basis for this thread is wrong.

My profession was market research, which is statistics and predictions based on statistics. Rarely demographics or other research. Timing of sales and store staffing at a multi-billion dollar company was based on my sales predictions using statistics.

Of all the points to attack, "statistics" is your weakest. I can't even see what this validity and statistics argument refers to.

If you’re such an expert in statistics then you should understand that Sample Size is important. Sample size is not just a factor of percentage of the population… but additionally there is a bottom-end raw number that needs to be considered for a sample size, and therefore predictions or conditions based on that sample size, to be statistically valid and relevant.

You said that “in modern presidential elections” discrepancies between Popular Vote/Electoral College Victory favored the Republicans…. and that this proved a “Bias”. You stated this without identifying what you consider ‘modern’ but frankly that’s moot. What are you talking about? Two presidential elections where the Republicans won the Presidency but had a lower Popular Vote count? Maybe 3 at most?

That’s like flipping a coin twice and it landing on heads both times, and you claiming that this proves the coin is “biased” towards heads. You’re ridiculous.

And then you don't know the English definition of biased?

Really? We haven’t even discussed the definition. I’ll defer to whatever definition you want… even if it’s a made-up definition that no one else agrees with. The point is that your inference is not supported by the data available; and EVEN IF IT WERE SUPPORTED BY THE DATA the data DOES NOT factor in the counter-factual point that a change in how the winner of the Presidency is determines would certainly change the behavior of all “players”;
-> Voters would modify their vote patterns to account for the new victory conditions.
-> Presidential aspirants would modify their ad buys, rally locations, and other activities based on the new victory conditions.

These may be good… but they render the ability to “prove” what you are claiming impossible without some sort of controlled experiment.

Yes, voting patterns will change based on how the winners are determined. I don't see any cogent arguments that would change the fact that a large majority of the people want to switch to the winner being the candidate who gets the most votes. A large majority of people are right, it should be.

I agreed that the system may be “antiquated” and it may not reflect the current political situation/identify of our country.

I believe your claim it is “biased” is both false and unsupported.

The philosophical argument that states should determine the winner and not the people is not how our concepts of American democracy have evolved. Many of the evolving Supreme Court decisions are based on that everyone should have equal representation, one man - one equal vote. The electoral college should be subject to the same principles that now apply to all other elections, at one time States could give more representation to this group of farmers over here or this town of rich people here. That has been done away with. It remains in the ECV system.

I never made this argument; though it’s Fact that this was the original principle. Again, your point that we as a people/nation have evolved is valid. So now… without belittling the the original… explain;
1) Why we should make a change. (You have done this to some degree.)
2) How we would make the change. (The cockamamie Pact idea is not gonna fly.)(I think you’d get support from the voters to make the Constitutional Amendment… it I don’t see politicians acting on this idea for AT LEAST the next 20years, if ever.)

There are a LOT of things that the majority of voters would do if given the opportunity….
*Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College.
*Establish Term Limits for Senate and Congress.
*Establish a retirement age for Senate, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court.
*End the Abortion Debate ONCE AND FOREVER; setting a ban after 15 weeks except in the case of the health of the mother.
(You don’t need to allow for incest or rape after 15 weeks as presumably these could be addressed in that period.)

That vast majority of voters would support all these…but our elected officials do not and will not act on these unless forced to do so by the united will of the people. Unlikely given that we are as divided and confused as Congress.

Hypotheticals about the states assigning their electors to the national popular vote winner would be rejected by the people of the states, that is not what is happening. More and more states are signing on.

How can you say “that’s not what is happening”? Yes… more STATES are signing on… but does the average voter agree with this idea; and will they continue to agree when the vote goes against them? You’re making a big leap-of-faith into the reliability and will of elected officials to stand by their commitments and believes in the face of massive constituent outrage.

Interesting times. Sad times with Fascist ignorance being so prevalent but interesting.

Oh.. please explain who or what you believe is Fascist Ignorance. You’ve called me ultra-conservative… but I can tell you many of my truly Conservative friends think I’m liberal. People like you are so far to one end of the political spectrum you can truly judge the middle anymore.

I find it funny when I argue Center-Left positions… and I get tagged as ultra conservative. It’s very telling.

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, ROTFLMAO.

[jimboston]

If you’re such an expert in statistics then you should understand that Sample Size is important. Sample size is not just a factor of percentage of the population… but additionally there is a bottom-end raw number that needs to be considered for a sample size, and therefore predictions or conditions based on that sample size, to be statistically valid and relevant.

This sounds like the sort of thing people say when they don't really grasp statistics but think saying 'sample size' enables them to dismiss any number they don't like.

Is 2 or 3 ever a big enough sample size to come up with any meaningful analysis?

This is more like something a knowledgeable person says to explain statistics to grade school child.

I felt I had to keep it pretty basic for this audience.

[jimboston]

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, ROTFLMAO.

If this is too many words for you to read…

Literally that post would take an average adult of normal intelligence like 15-20 seconds to read.

[Lonous]

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, reading is hard bruh

[Pack Rat]

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, ROTFLMAO.

If this is too many words for you to read…

Literally that post would take an average adult of normal intelligence like 15-20 seconds to read.

You must be a speed reader, lol.

[jimboston]

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, ROTFLMAO.

If this is too many words for you to read…

Literally that post would take an average adult of normal intelligence like 15-20 seconds to read.

You must be a speed reader, lol.

I just read it and timed myself. Closer to 30 seconds… but seriously it’s not that much for an “adult of normal intelligence”. We’re talking web forums level reading…. not a Physics textbook.

If my post took you more than a minutes to read… it’s a YOU problem.

Also, if you look at his post that I was responding to… you’ll see the response isn’t really much bigger. I deleted some of his original post from the quotes as it was redundant and/or meaningless… but the total word counts are comparable I think.

If you can’t hang at the adult table go back to the little kid table bruh.

[Pack Rat]

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, ROTFLMAO.

If this is too many words for you to read…

Literally that post would take an average adult of normal intelligence like 15-20 seconds to read.

You must be a speed reader, lol.

I just read it and timed myself. Closer to 30 seconds… but seriously it’s not that much for an “adult of normal intelligence”. We’re talking web forums level reading…. not a Physics textbook.

If my post took you more than a minutes to read… it’s a YOU problem.

Also, if you look at his post that I was responding to… you’ll see the response isn’t really much bigger. I deleted some of his original post from the quotes as it was redundant and/or meaningless… but the total word counts are comparable I think.

If you can’t hang at the adult table go back to the little kid table bruh.

You are obviously the smartest kid here with a talent to win girls hearts. We can only wish, if you wrote a book on how to be an intellect and womanizer like yourself.

[Dukasaur]

Nothing like drowning your opponent with words, ROTFLMAO.

If this is too many words for you to read…

Literally that post would take an average adult of normal intelligence like 15-20 seconds to read.

You must be a speed reader, lol.

I just read it and timed myself. Closer to 30 seconds… but seriously it’s not that much for an “adult of normal intelligence”. We’re talking web forums level reading…. not a Physics textbook.

If my post took you more than a minutes to read… it’s a YOU problem.

Also, if you look at his post that I was responding to… you’ll see the response isn’t really much bigger. I deleted some of his original post from the quotes as it was redundant and/or meaningless… but the total word counts are comparable I think.

If you can’t hang at the adult table go back to the little kid table bruh.

You are obviously the smartest kid here with a talent to win girls hearts. We can only wish, if you wrote a book on how to be an intellect and womanizer like yourself.

This isn't Flame Wars.

If you have nothing meaningful to add to a conversation, it's better to just let it rest than to sit there swapping insults.

[jimboston]

You are obviously the smartest kid here with a talent to win girls hearts. We can only wish, if you wrote a book on how to be an intellect and womanizer like yourself.

Thank you for the kind words.

Unfortunately you’ve already explained how you have a hard time slogging through a few paragraphs. So I don’t see how you think you could benefit from a whole book. That said I will give you some advice in one sentence that will benefit YOU specifically through your life.

Whatever your instinct or gut tells you to do or say; do the exact opposite.

I believe if YOU follow this one piece of advice your life will improve immensely.

(Also… how did a topic about the merits of the Electoral College System turn into some backhanded insult about my ability to score with women? Way off the mark bruh, and very weak sauce. If you want to insult me go for it… but you may want to use comments I’ve made as the actual basis for your attacks. It’s like I’m arguing with a 7yo… and when the 7yo can;t come up with a reply he just says “You’re ugly.”. WEAK.)