Get rid of the antiquated biased Electoral College

[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.

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.

Jim, read the above ruling from Dukasaur.

[GaryDenton]

Part of the frustration of arguing with jimboston is he uses statistical terms incorrectly.

He said the sample size was too small to prove bias only using recent elections.

The ECV being biased is not based on statistical proof based on recent elections, although they clearly confirm it. It is a function of historical politics and it was designed to favor Republicans. This is so elementary it is a wonder he doesn't know this.

The Western states were created in the decades after the Civil War when Republicans had unprecedented power and they created Western states to cement their power in Washington.

Why is there both a North and South Dakota when there were arguments about whether the entire Dakota territory had enough population to be a state? Republican power, they wanted more Senate votes and electoral votes.

They created numerous new states with low populations to cement their power in DC.
The electoral college strongly reflects this even over a hundred years later.

Bias.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/

D.C. statehood is a modest partisan ploy compared with the mass admission of underpopulated western territories—which boosts the GOP even 130 years later.

New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.

In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming—the largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later.

- - The great political historian Dr. Heather Cox Richardson.

[jimboston]

It is a function of historical politics and it was designed to favor Republicans.

This is the problem with arguing with Gary.
He’s so biased that it actually makes him dumb.

“it was designed to favor Republicans”

OK.
1) So the Republican Party did not exist when the Constitution was written.
2) So the political views of the Republican Party has morphed over time.
The Republican Party today is not the same party as we had in the 1980’s; or 50’s; or 19th Century… etc.

If you want to argue is was designed to favor republicans… as in “small-r” republicans.

People who favor a republic form of government; with a concentration of power that focuses on the States first and grows from there. Versus pure democrats… “small-d” democrats… who believe that a pure majority spread-out randomly across the nation should have ultimate authority. I don’t think a pure-democracy is right for this country. I’m sure we could all find many reasons why it would fail. Not the least of which is would be unstable and turn on a whim. We are already too unstable with major policy changes every 4-8 years… that would be worse.

But yes… That’s actually correct that the form of gov’t and elections was designed to be republic in nature.

Also… you used historical data to support your contention initially. So you use statistics to support your argument; and now when those are shown to be invalid you switch to some alternate poorly constructed point.

Funny.

To say it was “designed to favor Republicans”… that’s just idiotic.

[GaryDenton]

You are almost too smug and dumb to continue.

Republicans stacked the Senate and the Electoral College after the Civil War to favor their party. Recent elections confirm this with Republicans winning the White House despite millions of more votes against them, not that it needs confirming.

The Electoral College voting being a method to choose the president and vice-president frequently now gives us a Republican president who doesn't have a popular vote majority. This proves it is biased.

This is bad for democracy and bad for our institutions as a Republican president starts out unpopular and, unless he gets a war, is likely to remain so.

At some point, your continued insults will bother me.

[jusplay4fun]

You are almost too smug and dumb to continue.

Republicans stacked the Senate and the Electoral College after the Civil War to favor their party. Recent elections confirm this with Republicans winning the White House despite millions of more votes against them, not that it needs confirming.

The Electoral College voting being a method to choose the president and vice-president frequently now gives us a Republican president who doesn't have a popular vote majority. This proves it is biased.

This is bad for democracy and bad for our institutions as a Republican president starts out unpopular and, unless he gets a war, is likely to remain so.

At some point, your continued insults will bother me.

Let's take GaryD's war argument. First, Trump did not get us into war. It can be argued he avoided a war with North Korea. And he worked to end the war in Afghanistan. War or no war had LITTLE, if anything, to do with the election of Biden in 2020 over Trump.

Nixon pledged in his 1968 to get us out of the "war" in Vietnam and did so.

So on BOTH those point, GaryD is wrong, again.

And who get MOST of the blame for the "war" in Vietnam? Two Dems, JKF and LBJ. (I put "war" in quotes since it was not a declared war.)

And what about the Korean "war"? Another Dem: Truman

On June 25, 1950, the North Korean army under Kim Il-sung invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War. In the early weeks of the war, the North Koreans easily pushed back their southern counterparts.[214] Truman called for a naval blockade of Korea, only to learn that due to budget cutbacks, the U.S. Navy could not enforce such a measure.[215]

Truman promptly urged the United Nations to intervene; it did, authorizing troops under the UN flag led by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur. Truman decided he did not need formal authorization from Congress, believing that most legislators supported his position; this would come back to haunt him later when the stalemated conflict was dubbed "Mr. Truman's War" by legislators.[214]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

So here is a THIRD example where GaryD's biases show that he cannot think outside the box that he puts himself in.

[Dukasaur]

The Electoral College voting being a method to choose the president and vice-president frequently now gives us a Republican president who doesn't have a popular vote majority. This proves it is biased.

It's extremely rare for any country to have a chief executive who is the first choice of a clear majority.

A majority of the world's democracies are multiparty systems where even the dominant party is often the clear choice of something between 30 and 40% of the voters. And even there, many voters feel there isn't any good choice and simply stay home.

The founders of your country devised a good system to balance regional interests with more unitary democratic impulses. Unfortunately they were sailing in uncharted waters and didn't realize how easily it would be subverted to suit the interests of political parties. I can see a lot of ways how the electoral college could be improved, but scrapping it isn't one of them.

Deciding things by a simple majority is one of the worst possible ways to decide something. It allows a demagogue to rise to power if he can bamboozle a majority of the public even for one day. Building in safeguards to make sure smaller states have some say was a good idea, but it didn't go far enough. Should also have had some safeguards to protect the Electors from political manipulation. Having them swear an oath to join no political parties, as I advocate, would be one good way, but there are others. Isolating them from outside communication, like the Church does with the College of Cardinals, would be a good way to assure that they spend some time thinking about the job at hand without being swayed by outside forces. Pairing up everyone with someone they disagree with and having them have an honest two-way conversation before they return to the group, as some Native tribes do, would be another.

Or you could just choose the Electors by lottery. In 1981, I went to hear a speech by Jacques Cousteau. The great environmentalist genius spent a lot of time thinking not only about what needed to be done to save the world, but about how to get there. His proposal was to choose Parliament by random lottery. He argued it would actually give a better sampling of the nation's talent pool than politics, which tends to select for salesmanship and manipulation over other skills. At the time, I thought he was nuts, but in retrospect I feel there was a lot of wisdom in that man. Political parties subvert not only the desires of those who are not part of them, they subvert the will even of most of their own members. People in political parties who hold unpopular views have to conceal them to win, with the result that the voters rarely know what their elected representatives really stand for. The Athenians governed by casting lots, and it worked quite well for them.

[bigtoughralf]

The Electoral College voting being a method to choose the president and vice-president frequently now gives us a Republican president who doesn't have a popular vote majority. This proves it is biased.

It's extremely rare for any country to have a chief executive who is the first choice of a clear majority.

A majority of the world's democracies are multiparty systems where even the dominant party is often the clear choice of something between 30 and 40% of the voters. And even there, many voters feel there isn't any good choice and simply stay home.

A lot of those countries normally end up with coalition governments, which collectively represent the majority of voters' wishes. Almost every country in Europe has a government like that.

The only reason US presidents/parties end up winning elections with (just) over 50% of the vote is because the US electoral system shuts out anyone other than the two ruling parties from even running in the first place. If the US allowed other parties to compete nationally, within its system of local representation, it would probably get election results similar to the UK's: 20-25% of the vote going to smaller parties, but spread across local seats in such a way that those smaller parties get few or no representatives in government, and 40-45% of the national vote would be enough for one of the two ruling parties to secure a majority.

Either way it's a system of 'you can choose any leader you want as long as it's one of these two'.

[jimboston]

The Electoral College voting being a method to choose the president and vice-president frequently now gives us a Republican president who doesn't have a popular vote majority. This proves it is biased.

It's extremely rare for any country to have a chief executive who is the first choice of a clear majority.

A majority of the world's democracies are multiparty systems where even the dominant party is often the clear choice of something between 30 and 40% of the voters. And even there, many voters feel there isn't any good choice and simply stay home.

A lot of those countries normally end up with coalition governments, which collectively represent the majority of voters' wishes. Almost every country in Europe has a government like that.

The only reason US presidents/parties end up winning elections with (just) over 50% of the vote is because the US electoral system shuts out anyone other than the two ruling parties from even running in the first place. If the US allowed other parties to compete nationally, within its system of local representation, it would probably get election results similar to the UK's: 20-25% of the vote going to smaller parties, but spread across local seats in such a way that those smaller parties get few or no representatives in government, and 40-45% of the national vote would be enough for one of the two ruling parties to secure a majority.

Either way it's a system of 'you can choose any leader you want as long as it's one of these two'.

Red - Gary is wrong. This logic is just so ridiculously flawed.

Blue - Ralph is correct here (highlighted part). Our system encourages the formation of parties. The funny thing is that parties call themselves “national” but very often there are significant regional differences. A Republican in Massachusetts has more in common with a Democrat from Texas than either has with their own “Party”.

[GaryDenton]

I am not too sure what justplay4fun is arguing but it isn't what I wrote.
I wrote:

The Electoral College voting being a method to choose the president and vice-president frequently now gives us a Republican president who doesn't have a popular vote majority. This proves it is biased.

This is bad for democracy and bad for our institutions as a Republican president starts out unpopular and, unless he gets a war, is likely to remain so.

Somehow he gets this:

Let's take GaryD's war argument. First, Trump did not get us into war. It can be argued he avoided a war with North Korea. And he worked to end the war in Afghanistan. War or no war had LITTLE, if anything, to do with the election of Biden in 2020 over Trump.

Nixon pledged in his 1968 to get us out of the "war" in Vietnam and did so.

So on BOTH those point, GaryD is wrong, again.

???? - ????


My argument is Trump with less than a majority of the popular vote started out unpopular. He remained so as he didn't get a popular war, and he lost. How is this not proving my point?

Nixon??? How does that relate? Did he start out with a minority of the popular vote? No. Did he get a new popular war? No?

The president that proves my point is Bush. He started out only winning because of the Supreme Court. He had a minority of the popular vote. He remained unpopular until 9/11 and #poof# he can suddenly win reelection with an initially popular war.

I must not drink enough to follow how Nixon has anything to do with what I wrote.

And then JP4Fun decides to blame the Vietnam War on LBJ and JFK and he dubs the Korean War "Truman's War"

How does this relate to anything I wrote? He wants to do Democratic bashing over Democrats being the war party and yet claims

So here is a THIRD example where GaryD's biases show that he cannot think outside the box that he puts himself in.

He invents a partisan box and puts himself in it.

My argument is that having presidents elected without a popular mandate is bad for governing. The most common way for unpopular presidents to become popular is to get a popular war.

JP4Fun cannot look outside his partisan blinders to consider that and instead creates a whole mistaken argument about which party is a war party. It is a separate argument about what party gets us into wars.

jimboston pops in again with a funny. Historically true, but no longer.

Our system encourages the formation of parties. The funny thing is that parties call themselves “national” but very often there are significant regional differences. A Republican in Massachusetts has more in common with a Democrat from Texas than either has with their own “Party”.

Massachusetts actually had moderate Republicans like Romney in the past - do they still? Who?
Texas does have a few DINOs but just a handful who could switch parties. I don't think our Texas Democratic Party is like the Mass. Republican party.

Dukasaur decides the problem is democracy.

Deciding things by a simple majority is one of the worst possible ways to decide something.

Good luck with that.

jimboston again, in a post that seems to be conceding Republicans added states that benefitted them but so what?

The Republican Party today is not the same party as we had in the 1980’s; or 50’s; or 19th Century… etc.

OK - it is not the same party it was before the 50's with first the Southern strategy to grab the racist Southern Democrats who had power and then continued weaponizing hate, extremists, bigotry, and resentment.

The argument is that the bones or skeleton of the Republican Party continues to benefit from the EC system, even as it now has a rural Southern base it didn't have before.

I guess the other posts are mainly about other countries that instead of an electoral college system have multi-party systems where frequently the leader of the country has minority support.

Oh?

What percentage of countries is it true that the leaders have minority support? Isn't the point of their parties and government to form coalition governments that represent the majority? Are you sure you know how those systems work?

We seem to be the only one to have a system where some people say minority governments are a good thing. Our leaders do not need to have the support of the majority of the people because having a majority of states is more important, but the EC doesn't even ensure that. It doesn't count the number of states. It is just a stupid system.

I am a bit surprised by the attacks on democracy here.

Ignore the presidency - none of our other elections are for anything other than a majority of the vote.
You don't like that? Do you think states are more important than the country? Do you still owe your highest loyalty to your state and not your country?

[jimboston]

My argument is that having presidents elected without a popular mandate is bad for governing. The most common way for unpopular presidents to become popular is to get a popular war.

This might be your new argument. Your original / failed argument was that 2-3 elections “prove” the system is biased.

This is inaccurate… 2 or 3 of anything is NOT proof. It may be possible to form the beginnings of a theory based on anecdotal evidence… but the beginnings of a theory are NOT proof. The system could just as easily award an electoral victory to a Democrat over a Republican popular vote winner.

jimboston pops in again with a funny. Historically true, but no longer.

Our system encourages the formation of parties. The funny thing is that parties call themselves “national” but very often there are significant regional differences. A Republican in Massachusetts has more in common with a Democrat from Texas than either has with their own “Party”.

Massachusetts actually had moderate Republicans like Romney in the past - do they still? Who?
Texas does have a few DINOs but just a handful who could switch parties. I don't think our Texas Democratic Party is like the Mass. Republican party.

We have a Democrat Governor now… but had a Republican till just a couple years ago.

We have no Republicans holding Federal office and only a few State level Republicans.

jimboston again, in a post that seems to be conceding Republicans added states that benefitted them but so what?

Ummm… where did I “concede” that point? I don’t think I ever addressed THAT point.

I did say…

The Republican Party today is not the same party as we had in the 1980’s; or 50’s; or 19th Century… etc.

OK - it is not the same party it was before the 50's with first the Southern strategy to grab the racist Southern Democrats who had power and then continued weaponizing hate, extremists, bigotry, and resentment.

The argument is that the bones or skeleton of the Republican Party continues to benefit from the EC system, even as it now has a rural Southern base it didn't have before.

You have yet to prove that the EC system is biased.

Ignore the presidency - none of our other elections are for anything other than a majority of the vote.
You don't like that? Do you think states are more important than the country? Do you still owe your highest loyalty to your state and not your country?

The Presidency is the only national office… the Senate and Congress are elected by the States.

As Saxi said…technically the President is elected by the States… not the people.

Based on your argument you would also demand that elections for Senate be “corrected” because those also favor Republicans. It’s proportionally similar in the sense that every state gets a two and so smaller states get proportionally more power. That’s your problem with the EC so therefore you MUST have the same problem with the Senate.

[jusplay4fun]

Here is what GaryD wrote and posted; I responded to it by SHOWING that Truman got us into the Korean War.

(btw: I did not say that; those alive at the time said it. You can re-read that post.)

GaryDenton wrote:

You are almost too smug and dumb to continue.

This is bad for democracy and bad for our institutions as a Republican president starts out unpopular and, unless he gets a war, is likely to remain so.

At some point, your continued insults will bother me.

Insults? NO, just the facts. ma'am.

I did not bring up wars, you did, GaryD. You seem to forget or ignore what you posted. GaryD apparently brings up spurious arguments.

You are too biased to comprehend your own biases. You, sir, cannot see the forest for the trees.

[Pack Rat]

Animosity can derail any thread.

[Lonous]

Or any Constitutional Republic

[Dukasaur]

[Pack Rat]

Or any Constitutional Republic

Don't worry Trump wants to rid this country of the Constitution.

[jusplay4fun]

I think GaryD forgets that the Founding Fathers did NOT want the President selected by popular vote. Hence the Electoral College was established. His entire argument is based on that premise, direct and popular election of the President.

[Pack Rat]

I think GaryD forgets that the Founding Fathers did NOT want the President selected by popular vote. Hence the Electoral College was established. His entire argument is based on that premise, direct and popular election of the President.

I believe that is exactly the point GaryDenton is making.

[jonesthecurl]

Not throwing my hat in the ring here, but simple summary:
GD - Democracy good. Electoral College bad.
Others: States good, Democracy bad.
GD: My point exactly.
Others: my point exactly.



Carry on.

[mookiemcgee]

Not throwing my hat in the ring here, but simple summary:
GD - Democracy good. Electoral College bad.
Others: States good, Democracy bad.
GD: My point exactly.
Others: my point exactly.



Carry on.

[Pack Rat]

Not throwing my hat in the ring here, but simple summary:
GD - Democracy good. Electoral College bad.
Others: States good, Democracy bad.
GD: My point exactly.
Others: my point exactly.



Carry on.

Jonesthecurl wins the thread!

[jusplay4fun]

Not throwing my hat in the ring here, but simple summary:
GD - Democracy good. Electoral College bad.
Others: States good, Democracy bad.
GD: My point exactly.
Others: my point exactly.



Carry on.

This is simply an over-simplification and distortion of the discussion. Those parroting the idea have a low level of comprehension of the ideas expressed.

Btw: Kansas is/was a great Band. And the rest of the title is appropriate here…..Wayward Son. Who is the Wayward Son here? What is he attempting to accomplish?

[jimboston]

Not throwing my hat in the ring here, but simple summary:
GD - Democracy good. Electoral College bad.
Others: States good, Democracy bad.
GD: My point exactly.
Others: my point exactly.



Carry on.

No.

If he was simply stating that the Electoral College was “bad” and antiquated and no longer reflected the general will or nature of the country… I would be happy to discuss that on its merits.

Though, like others, I believe it’s obvious the Founding Fathers setup the EC to ensure a more republican system with State’s holding more power… I also recognize the fact that our country has evolved in 200+ years and it’s possibly time to update our system(s) to reflect these changes. I think it may be a good idea to abolish the EC system. I definitely feel we need rules at the Federal level limiting how long people can hold elected offices; and I absolutely believe we should have a mandatory retirement age somewhere around 70yo.

The problem with Gary is that he calls the EC system biased in favor of the Republican Party. He uses that word as if it it holds some magical power. Unfortunately he misuses it and there I object. His use of that term implies the EC has some independent “will” as-if it can subjectively ‘put a finger on the scale’ in specific situations to favor Republicans. He ignores basic facts… like the fact that the EC existed prior to the Republican Party; or that the players and voters would all change behavior if a different system were established.

Perhaps the Republicans are just better at ‘playing the game’ of winning Presidential Elections when things are tight?

He provides 2 or 3 examples to “prove” his point… hoping no one realizes that 2-3 examples of anything are anecdotal and prove nothing.

Liberals like to use words like “biased” or “racist” to shutdown conversation… but their over-use of these types of words do a few things…
*Overuse over time, and especially misuse over time, reduces the impact of the word and eventual can make the word meaningless.
*These words often don’t help solve the underlying problem; but they do turn people off and make people who might otherwise be open to discussion shutdown and “get their hackles up” because they feel they are being attacked.

Gary would have produced a more intelligent and interactive conversation had he started essentially the same conversation without using the word biased.

“It’s time to consider getting rid of the antiquated Electoral College.”

No need to make it a Right-vs-Left issue by saying it favors Republicans. Counter-Productive.