Why shouldn't the electoral college be abolished? -

[Rand /pol/]

Most of the arguments I see against abolishing the electoral college are basically that it would give too much power to urban areas. But if roughly 80% of Americans live in urban areas why shouldn't they have greater sway over the country? People usually say that's "tyranny of the majority" but if the (rural) minority has disproportionately more power in elections that's just tyranny of the minority. If you live in a certain state your vote is just worth more, and I haven't seen a reasonable explanation for it.

 

[UN 474]

Well, if you can't win, change the rules!

 

[wylfım]

Because what's good for California is not good for anyone else in the country, and frequently not good for California to boot.

 

[Rand /pol/]

Because what's good for California is not good for anyone else in the country, and frequently not good for California to boot.

What's for good for Wyoming isn't good for literally anyone but millionaires who Republicans give huge-ass tax breaks so why the fuck should people in Wyoming and Nebraska has more power per person in elections

 

[Takodachi]

C for effort

 

[jewniggerdestroyer]

because the founders had prophetic revelations which let them know that in 200 years, a farmer in Wyoming will be far more valuable to the country then someone living in LA

 

[wylfım]

Because what's good for California is not good for anyone else in the country, and frequently not good for California to boot.

What's for good for Wyoming isn't good for literally anyone but millionaires who Republicans give huge-ass tax breaks so why the fuck should people in Wyoming and Nebraska has more power per person in elections

Because more power doesn't equate absolute power, unlike California Texas and Florida.
All it ensures is that you can't totally ignore people just because they're not in NYC or LA.

 

[ES 195]

Without an electoral college you end up like Canada. First past the polls is retarded and anyone thinks otherwise is also retarded.

 

[Black Waltz]

i fucked op's mom last night

 

[Golly]

I'm wondering if a compromise in which each congressional district is represented by 1 elector, but the district vote is always honored would be viable.

For example, New York has 27 congressional districts. Hypothetically, 20 of them go blue and 7 go red. Instead of the state allotting all 27 electoral points to the democratic candidate, they would only get the 20 and the remaining 7 would be allotted to the republican.

The value of the vote is then brought down to a district level. Blue towns in red states and red towns in blue states get more of a say without concerns of urban voters dominating the whole thing.

 

[SilkGnut]

Democracies are just oligarchies that are playing the long game.

 

[Rand /pol/]

Because more power doesn't equate absolute power, unlike California Texas and Florida.
All it ensures is that you can't totally ignore people just because they're not in NYC or LA.

They can still vote moron they just won't be disproportionately powerful in elections. Would you support giving blacks five votes to every white in an election because they're in the minority? No, that'd be fucking retarded just like giving rural shitholes more power.

 

[DK 699]

I'm wondering if a compromise in which each congressional district is represented by 1 elector, but the district vote is always honored would be viable.

For example, New York has 27 congressional districts. Hypothetically, 20 of them go blue and 7 go red. Instead of the state allotting all 27 electoral points to the democratic candidate, they would only get the 20 and the remaining 7 would be allotted to the republican.

The value of the vote is then brought down to a district level. Blue towns in red states and red towns in blue states get more of a say without concerns of urban voters dominating the whole thing.

This. Also don't Maine and Nebraska do it this way?

 

[wylfım]

They can still vote moron they just won't be disproportionately powerful in elections. Would you support giving blacks five votes to every white in an election because they're in the minority? No, that'd be fucking exceptional just like giving rural shitholes more power.

blacks are not a minority of choice, and so they don't need any special privileges. the only rights that need to be protected are those that people might not need.

 

[jewniggerdestroyer]

They can still vote moron they just won't be disproportionately powerful in elections. Would you support giving blacks five votes to every white in an election because they're in the minority? No, that'd be fucking exceptional just like giving rural shitholes more power.

you're missing the point. you massive cocksucking faggot
why shouldn't more valuable people (farmers, rural workers, ranchers, etc) have more voting power then the urbanites? ironically enough, even if you don't believe that rural inhabitants arent more valuable then city dwellers (pro gamer tip, they really are.), you might find solidarity in the idea that these provisions were put in the constitution as a way to PROTECT minorities from majority opinion, hence us being a republic and not a democracy. the electoral college ensures that these people are represented in government and have an actual voice when put up against the throngs of rat utopia city dwellers who grow in number every single day.
tldr: the founders loved minorities, why dont you?

 

[Cynically Insane]

There is no good reason. One person should = one vote.

There are a couple reasons it still exists. The first being that changing the current system would be a total nightmare. As long as more than one third of elected officials think they or their party can garner the slightest benefit from the electoral college a constitutional amendment will never pass. Which leads to the second reason, it is exploitable. Politicians love to focus on ways to increase their numbers without actually having to earn more votes.

Yes, it made sense when voting was done in one place for all states. Today though there is no legitimate reason to deny every citizen an equal say. I further contend that eliminating the college would actually create a political convergence where both sides become more collaborative and less cringey. Pandering to one's base would no longer be effective. They would all have to focus on the bigger picture and winning over more Americans instead of strategizing to get the most college votes.

It would be nothing but good for the people and bad for the politicians. Which why it will never happen.

 

[Rand /pol/]

blacks are not a minority of choice, and so they don't need any special privileges. the only rights that need to be protected are those that people might not need.

A person is part of minority group because of the circumstances of their birth? Nah, they don't need extra protections or privileges. A person is a minority because of a choice they voluntarily made? Hurr they need to get dicksucked and have everyone else get fucked over.

This is a perfect example of Poe's law.

why shouldn't more valuable people (farmers, rural workers, ranchers, etc) have more voting power then the urbanites? ironically enough, even if you don't believe that rural inhabitants arent more valuable then city dwellers (pro gamer tip, they really are.)

The 10 States That Give More to the Feds Than They Get Back

Connecticut tops the list of states whose taxpayers receive the least bang for their buck from the feds.

www.governing.com

Your entire point is like...objectively wrong. It is so self-evidently false I don't have even know how you thought of it.

you might find solidarity in the idea that these provisions were put in the constitution as a way to PROTECT minorities from majority opinion, hence us being a republic and not a democracy. the electoral college ensures that these people are represented in government and have an actual voice when put up against the throngs of rat utopia city dwellers who grow in number every single day.
tldr: the founders loved minorities, why dont you?

Some dead old white guys said some stuff a couple centuries ago therefore we should never question anything they created.

Bruh.

 

[Golly]

This. Also don't Maine and Nebraska do it this way?

I think it's very close, but iirc the electoral college adds at least 2 extra points per state over what the actual congressional district number is. It's supposed to serve as some kind of happy medium between number of senators (2 per state) and number of representatives (1 per district, number of districts being dictated by population numbers in the census), I think. As a result, states that choose to split are left with extra points that kind of serve as a strange abstract.

 

[Kamov Ka-52]

This is transparent bait, but fuck it, I'll bite:

We should keep the electoral college because it's working exactly how the founders intended it to; the electoral college was literally designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority, which it does very successfully. It's just like giving each state two senators to ensure that people outside of the urban centers would still have a voice in policy-making, There's a good argument to be made that in a country as heterogeneous as the United States that the EC is more representative than directly voting for president. Besides, with a very few notable exceptions, the EC aligns with the popular vote anyway. Checks and balances are essential to representative democracy.

Edit: A much more subtle shitpost would've been that electors are in no way legally obligated to vote in accordance with the popular vote and that's why it should be abolished.

 

[wylfım]

A person is part of minority group because of the circumstances of their birth? Nah, they don't need extra protections or privileges. A person is a minority because of a choice they voluntarily made? Hurr they need to get dicksucked and have everyone else get fucked over.

Involuntary minorities will continue to exist regardless of their circumstances. Meanwhile farmers, Nazis, and married couples wouldn't if they didn't have have protections or privileges (EC for the first, 1st amendment for the second, tax breaks for the third). People will not voluntarily choose to be a minority in anything unless there are perks associated with it— and diversity (of thought and action) does have actual merit, hence why no equity.