Why shouldn't the electoral college be abolished? -

Lemmingwise

✊Black in solidarity with black lives matter✊
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
You'd be more like Sweden or Germany if you didn't.

Still want democracy?

If democracy was actually good, the US wouldn't force the countries they occupied to become democratic.
 

Cynically Insane

They must have taken my marbles away
kiwifarms.net
Without an electoral college you end up like Canada. First past the polls is exceptional and anyone thinks otherwise is also exceptional.
The only time first past the post is bad is when there are more than 2 options. In Canada it is particularly bad because there are at least 3 major parties and no elected head of state. There is no way to have a house and leader from different parties because the leader of the house is the leader of the party with the most seats.

Justin Trudeau got elected on his promise to institute electoral change, arguing for a ranked ballot. The ideal situation in a parliamentary system. However, just a few weeks into his reign he stated that Canadians no longer felt that electoral reform is important. I am laughing now because with an election coming he would have fared far better with a ranked ballot. He will likely be re-elected anyway though because the conservatives are running a bowl of cold oatmeal and the NDP a corrupt towel head. There are no better options as a spokesperson for the country. Ideally Canadians should be able to vote for their MP (local rep in the house) and the PM. That would create a government far more reflective of the people. But it would again require major constitutional changes that all parties would attempt to exploit to further their own agenda instead of standing up for the citizenry. Same shit, different system.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Slap47

Lemmingwise

✊Black in solidarity with black lives matter✊
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Sweden and Germany are more developed than the US.
It depends on whether you compare the aggregate or the most developed parts.

Besides, they're standing on the shoulders of giants while not having built the shoulders that their kids can stand on; to think about it, they don't have the kids either, but that's another issue.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Lurkio and Slap47

ProgKing of the North

^^^^FUCKTARD^^^^
kiwifarms.net
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.
The extra points (the two votes representing the senate) go to the statewide winner

For example in 2008, McCain won Nebraska, which has 3 districts and 5 votes, but Obama won the 2nd district (Omaha and, at the time, some older parts of Bellevue) so McCain won 4 votes and Obama 1.

So of course in 2010 the state republicans managed to move the nonOmaha parts of the second district to the newer, richer, whiter suburbs of LaVista and Papillion, but that’s a separate issue.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Slap47 and Golly

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Against EC

-The system of picking electors is actually retarded. They sometimes just change their mind and vote for whatever they want.

-The electoral college was created when the USA could best be described as an "aristocratic republic". The idea was that groups would pick a friend with shared interests to represent them (Think cliques of Virginian planters or businessmen in Boston). Instead of focusing on politics they would leave that to their one friend and get back to work. Now this system is designed to represent millions of common people and nowadays people are able to just vote on candidates themselves thanks to modern technology. Its still the case now but back then the politics was more about regional differences and interests and the EC did that job well. People don't really need to pick electors anymore.

-The electoral college discourages people from voting as there is basically no reason to vote if you live in a state with a dominant party. Millions of red Californians and blue Texans voting would be a good thing. The big meme is that "Hillary won the popular vote" but we don't know how people would vote with a different system.

-The electoral college is overly complicated and discourages voter participation. Learning politics should mean learning about issues, not understanding a strange system.

-The electoral college prevents the coasts from dominating the country. Perhaps the cities should have more power if they have more people?

-Its ok to change these institutions, the vice president used to be the guy from the losing party (Lmao).

-The electoral college plays a part in the USA not having parties that can actually represent the people. Parties become bureaucratic morasses that exist to serve their own interests that survive based on the "lesser evil" idea.

Pro EC

+The electoral college prevents the coasts from dominating the country. This prevents the cities from looting the countryside. You see this in many African and European countries where wealth is concentrated in an extremely densely populated core while the rest of the country is neglected. The Congo and Cosmopolitan France display this best. I would also that this is the case with Canada and her western provinces (as the Canadian senate is basically a rubber stamp).

+The electoral college was created by the founders... I guess Americans would call that a pro. I don't think so do the aforementioned "aristocratic republic" thing I discussed earlier.

+The rural backbone of the country is given alot of representation.

+It prevents extremist parties from taking power by ensuring the dominance of two largely inoffensive parties.

+The system is excellent for expanding countries as new states are joining a country rather than becoming slaves to a faraway populated core.




My Opinion:

I think reform is possible. The system of actually having electors is dumb but the principle of each state getting fair representation is a hard issue to tackle.

In Canada where the senate is irrelevant you have a setup where the rural provinces subsidize an ever degenerating urban core in the east. This tyranny of the majority is not obvious as the Harper Government (2006-2015) was based in rural Alberta but through those years the west subsidized the east through annual equalization payments.

1564535582876.png


The USA has similar programs but its less tyranny of the majority and more of a system where both dogshit cities and rural hellscapes get free money to burn on nothing.
 

Niggernerd

Hol up *siiiiiiiiip* nigga
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Because fuck niggers and Californians.
"fly over states" and most small towns we get our produce from are important.
 

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The electoral college shouldn't be abolished because I like hearing you babies cry about it when you lose.
Trendy hipsters are fleeing California and setting up estates in the midwest. This cancer will kill you no matter what you do.
 

DDBCAE CBAADCBE

Buying a Switch & Animal Crossing with Trump bucks
kiwifarms.net
Trendy hipsters are fleeing California and setting up estates in the midwest. This cancer will kill you no matter what you do.
This is what I'm saying. I don't care if it gets abolished and I find it funny when both sides bicker over it. Nothing will change either way. Nothing ever really changes.
 

Some JERK

I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin'
kiwifarms.net
Abolishing the EC might not work out as well as some think it would. I know quite a few people here in CA that don't bother voting because it's a waste of time for them. Turn it into a straight-up national popular vote, and a lot of people who never bothered voting because their votes didn't count in a Democrat stronghold are going to show up to the polls. Obviously I don't know exactly how many people that would be, or if it would be enough to make a difference, but it's something worth thinking about.
 
Q

QI 541

Guest
kiwifarms.net
I can think of reasons both to keep and abolish it. The core of the issue is that democracy is inherently flawed, especially when you have too many different groups of people with different conflicting interests. Imagine hypothetically what would happen if the world suddenly became one huge democracy and we all had to make decisions based on the whims of the entire population of China and India.
 

Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake

It's screamin' good.
kiwifarms.net
The federal government was never meant to be a centralized political tool used to priotize the agenda of one population over another. If you want to exert your agenda to deal with your local issues, use your municipal or state government. You have no right to inflict your will on the entirety of the nation, especially one that was designed to prevent the tyranny of the masses.
 

Ambidextype

Rubbing hand intensifies
kiwifarms.net
...and the US doesn't have tons of serious problems that need to be addressed?
Like homeless problem in San Francisco which the brainlet governer in Cali just excerbates the problem by bringing in more illegal immigrants and overcrowd the state impossible to provide the housing to all the residents and sustain the healthy economy.
 

Casey0714

kiwifarms.net
Because if you link voting power directly to population, you create an incentive for areas seeking to gain/retain power to push policies incentivising their population to rapidly increase. That leads to a rapid drain on resources leading to a shortage of resources leading to less things to help those in need while their numbers continue to exponentially expand. Meanwhile, places that actually maintain themselves well get their good policies drowned out by the flood of masses trying to ride the height of their newfound power till they cause a crash.
 
Tags
None