Revising the Electoral College

[zorq]

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

The belief that democracy is better for everyone than an oligarchy based on 18th century elitists?
That the American people choosing the President is better than the partisans in state legislatures choosing a president for them, even when The People vote clearly and loudly against the partisan politician's choice?

How about that?
Tom

So that’s your pitch to the smaller states to make their citizens’ votes irrelevant? Well, at least you tried.

The irony in this post is painful. So Wyoming residents can only have influence in government when their vote is worth more than three times as much as a vote from California? It's triple power or "irrelevant?" That's a loony false dichotomy.

The system disenfranchises half the electorate as it is. State by state winner take all steals the influence from the minority party voters in each state and coopts it in favor of the majority party. As a conservative living in California, I would have expected you to understand this. The very fact that you are a conservative living in a disproportionately liberal state gives the liberals extra influence in national politics because they get to count you on the resident roles and the liberals earn extra votes in the electoral college. Well, the same is true for liberals living in Utah. I don't know who you marked on your ballot recently but even if you didn't vote at all, your actual vote went to Biden.

If you actually wanted to make the votes of people not irrelevant, you would let each person's vote actually count toward the total!

Furthermore, as was mentioned above, the interests of people who don't live in swing states are already totally ignored! Presidential candidates don't actually pander to voters in California OR Wyoming because their votes are pretty much already decided. That gives inordinate influence to voters in weird places like Nevada. Wouldn't you rather national politicians actually try to pitch plans and policies to the WHOLE COUNTRY instead of just a select few states that are just purple enough to warrant their interest? Conservative Voters in all these small red states are being ignored because their state is too red. Their voices are irrelevant right now because their vote is taken for granted.

If voters in small states, big states, ANY states actually want their voices to be heard they should choose to bypass the Electoral College, because right now, it is the choices of a few million special people who live in select states who have the real influence over national races. And YOU aren't one of them!

 

[Trausti]

How do you think constitutional amendments are passed?

No Constitutional Amendment needed to democratize our presidential elections.
Tom

If you want to get rid of the EC it would be.

 

[Trausti]

So that’s your pitch to the smaller states to make their citizens’ votes irrelevant? Well, at least you tried.

The irony in this post is painful. So Wyoming residents can only have influence in government when their vote is worth more than three times as much as a vote from California? It's triple power or "irrelevant?" That's a loony false dichotomy.

The system disenfranchises half the electorate as it is. State by state winner take all steals the influence from the minority party voters in each state and coopts it in favor of the majority party. As a conservative living in California, I would have expected you to understand this. The very fact that you are a conservative living in a disproportionately liberal state gives the liberals extra influence in national politics because they get to count you on the resident roles and the liberals earn extra votes in the electoral college. Well, the same is true for liberals living in Utah. I don't know who you marked on your ballot recently but even if you didn't vote at all, your actual vote went to Biden.

If you actually wanted to make the votes of people not irrelevant, you would let each person's vote actually count toward the total!

Furthermore, as was mentioned above, the interests of people who don't live in swing states are already totally ignored! Presidential candidates don't actually pander to voters in California OR Wyoming because their votes are pretty much already decided. That gives inordinate influence to voters in weird places like Nevada. Wouldn't you rather national politicians actually try to pitch plans and policies to the WHOLE COUNTRY instead of just a select few states that are just purple enough to warrant their interest? Conservative Voters in all these small red states are being ignored because their state is too red. Their voices are irrelevant right now because their vote is taken for granted.

If voters in small states, big states, ANY states actually want their voices to be heard they should choose to bypass the Electoral College, because right now, it is the choices of a few million special people who live in select states who have the real influence over national races. And YOU aren't one of them!

No where in your response is an explanation why the smaller states should make themselves irrelevant.

 

[zorq]

No where in your response is an explanation why the smaller states should make themselves irrelevant.

Your complaint was that VOTERS in small states shouldn't make their votes irrelevant. My observation is that their votes are already irrelevant. Pay attention to what you write!

 

[Trausti]

No where in your response is an explanation why the smaller states should make themselves irrelevant.

Your complaint was that VOTERS in small states shouldn't make their votes irrelevant. My observation is that their votes are already irrelevant. Pay attention to what you write!

They are not irrelevant, as they often align with the voters of other small states. Why should they give that up and leave to California and New York to decide the winner?

 

[TomC]

How do you think constitutional amendments are passed?

No Constitutional Amendment needed to democratize our presidential elections.
Tom

If you want to get rid of the EC it would be.

I've never suggested getting rid of the EC.

This sort of thing makes it hard to carry on a conversation about the reality. The current rigged system is not constitutional. State legislatures can choose EC delegates however they want, according to the Constitution. If they decide to send delegates to vote according to the U.S. electorate that's how things are. A democratically elected president.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

No where in your response is an explanation why the smaller states should make themselves irrelevant.

Your complaint was that VOTERS in small states shouldn't make their votes irrelevant. My observation is that their votes are already irrelevant. Pay attention to what you write!

They are not irrelevant, as they often align with the voters of other small states. Why should they give that up and leave to California and New York to decide the winner?

If I were an American, I would say fuck how the small states feel. At the moment the minority is holding the majority hostage in deciding who should represent the United States. If you don't want rural regions being ignored in government, all you have to do is ensure each state has an equal number of representatives in the senate, like every other first world nation does it.

Oh, wait...that's already the case. So it's a bullshit argument that small states would be side lined if the Electoral College ceased to exist. The argument can very easily be made that the most influential person in the US government for the last decade has been the Majority Speaker for the Senate.

 

[TomC]

No where in your response is an explanation why the smaller states should make themselves irrelevant.

Your complaint was that VOTERS in small states shouldn't make their votes irrelevant. My observation is that their votes are already irrelevant. Pay attention to what you write!

They are not irrelevant, as they often align with the voters of other small states. Why should they give that up and leave to California and New York to decide the winner?

What do you think that voters in small states have in common?
Tom

 

[zorq]

Trausti,
Firstly, if every voter's vote becomes equal, how can you insist that any vote is irrelevant? They are all equally relavant...as opposed to the system we have now.

In combination with your most recent reply, when the interests of voters in small states allign with the interests of other voters in other small states, guess what? They can still make their voices heard together in a more democratc system.

Furthermore, the fact that some of the interests of people in small states might allign, doesn't mean that all of them aren't being ignored due to a demographic fluke that makes pandering to them useless. When the EC votes aren't in play, they will all be ignored together.

Why don't you just admit that you prefer a bizarre system that systematically disenfranchises, ignores, or co-opts the will of a majority of American voters. You are a proponant of inequality! You smile when you think about stealing votes and influence from select minorities. You think people who think like you think deserve extra votes! Go ahead, you can do it.

 

[Trausti]

Trausti,
Firstly, if every voter's vote becomes equal, how can you insist that any vote is irrelevant? They are all equally relavant...as opposed to the system we have now.

In combination with your most recent reply, when the interests of voters in small states allign with the interests of other voters in other small states, guess what? They can still make their voices heard together in a more democratc system.

Furthermore, the fact that some of the interests of people in small states might allign, doesn't mean that all of them aren't being ignored due to a demographic fluke that makes pandering to them useless. When the EC votes aren't in play, they will all be ignored together.

Why don't you just admit that you prefer a bizarre system that systematically disenfranchises, ignores, or co-opts the will of a majority of American voters. You are a proponant of inequality! You smile when you think about stealing votes and influence from select minorities. You think people who think like you think deserve extra votes! Go ahead, you can do it.

FFS, it’s the United STATES. Why should a state bother to be in the union if it’s citizens’ voted become irrelevant?

 

[TomC]

Trausti,
Firstly, if every voter's vote becomes equal, how can you insist that any vote is irrelevant? They are all equally relavant...as opposed to the system we have now.

In combination with your most recent reply, when the interests of voters in small states allign with the interests of other voters in other small states, guess what? They can still make their voices heard together in a more democratc system.

Furthermore, the fact that some of the interests of people in small states might allign, doesn't mean that all of them aren't being ignored due to a demographic fluke that makes pandering to them useless. When the EC votes aren't in play, they will all be ignored together.

Why don't you just admit that you prefer a bizarre system that systematically disenfranchises, ignores, or co-opts the will of a majority of American voters. You are a proponant of inequality! You smile when you think about stealing votes and influence from select minorities. You think people who think like you think deserve extra votes! Go ahead, you can do it.

FFS, it’s the United STATES. Why should a state bother to be in the union if it’s citizens’ voted become irrelevant?

My vote is irrelevant.
I live in Indiana. It's reliably Republican. Even the Democratic politicians act like Republicans.

Why should my vote be irrelevant?
Tom

 

[Patooka]

FFS, it’s the United STATES. Why should a state bother to be in the union if it’s citizens’ voted become irrelevant?

You've got to admire the complete lack of self awareness required to make such a statement, given the context of the discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

No where in your response is an explanation why the smaller states should make themselves irrelevant.

Your complaint was that VOTERS in small states shouldn't make their votes irrelevant. My observation is that their votes are already irrelevant. Pay attention to what you write!

They are not irrelevant, as they often align with the voters of other small states. Why should they give that up and leave to California and New York to decide the winner?

California and New York don't decide elections. People do.

 

[Trausti]

FFS, it’s the United STATES. Why should a state bother to be in the union if it’s citizens’ voted become irrelevant?

You've got to admire the complete lack of self awareness required to make such a statement, given the context of the discussion.

FYI, American states are not like Australian states.

 

[Trausti]

Trausti,
Firstly, if every voter's vote becomes equal, how can you insist that any vote is irrelevant? They are all equally relavant...as opposed to the system we have now.

In combination with your most recent reply, when the interests of voters in small states allign with the interests of other voters in other small states, guess what? They can still make their voices heard together in a more democratc system.

Furthermore, the fact that some of the interests of people in small states might allign, doesn't mean that all of them aren't being ignored due to a demographic fluke that makes pandering to them useless. When the EC votes aren't in play, they will all be ignored together.

Why don't you just admit that you prefer a bizarre system that systematically disenfranchises, ignores, or co-opts the will of a majority of American voters. You are a proponant of inequality! You smile when you think about stealing votes and influence from select minorities. You think people who think like you think deserve extra votes! Go ahead, you can do it.

FFS, it’s the United STATES. Why should a state bother to be in the union if it’s citizens’ voted become irrelevant?

My vote is irrelevant.
I live in Indiana. It's reliably Republican. Even the Democratic politicians act like Republicans.

Why should my vote be irrelevant?
Tom

Has everyone forgotten their history? Individual sovereign states came together to form a joint national government. For such an arrangement between big and small states, there's a trade off. But ultimately it's the states that matter. Like how many votes does each state get in congress get if no presidential candidate wins the electoral college?

 

[Patooka]

FFS, it’s the United STATES. Why should a state bother to be in the union if it’s citizens’ voted become irrelevant?

You've got to admire the complete lack of self awareness required to make such a statement, given the context of the discussion.

FYI, American states are not like Australian states.

That's got fuck all to do with how blatantly undemocratic the Electoral College is. Your argument basically boils down to rural votes should matter more because they vote how you would like and California and New York (not sure why you didn't go full Republicunt and mention Illinois as well) shouldn't matter as much because Trausti doesn't like how they vote. I'll repeat what I said before; small states get equal representation as bigger states in the senate. That's what most people call checks and balances.

 

[zorq]

My vote is irrelevant.
I live in Indiana. It's reliably Republican. Even the Democratic politicians act like Republicans.

Why should my vote be irrelevant?
Tom

Has everyone forgotten their history? Individual sovereign states came together to form a joint national government. For such an arrangement between big and small states, there's a trade off. But ultimately it's the states that matter. Like how many votes does each state get in congress get if no presidential candidate wins the electoral college?

Have you forgotten the lessons on fairness you got in kindergarten? Why should some votes be irrelevant, ignored, or co-opted when there is a completely sane, rational, and easy way to make them equitable and all count? We don't need to placate the immoral slave states anymore. We shouldn't have to prostrate ourselves in front of entrenched corrupt power structures. The country has changed. This should change too.

Or just admit that you like the twisted system that disenfranchises, co-opts, and ignores the voices of the majority of Americans.

 

[fromderinside]

My vote is irrelevant.
I live in Indiana. It's reliably Republican. Even the Democratic politicians act like Republicans. Why should my vote be irrelevant?
Tom

For whatever reason you live in Indiana. If you can explain why you live in Indiana you can explain why your vote is irrelevant.

Has everyone forgotten their history? Individual sovereign states came together to form a joint national government. For such an arrangement between big and small states, there's a trade off. But ultimately it's the states that matter. Like how many votes does each state get in congress get if no presidential candidate wins the electoral college?

Have you forgotten the lessons on fairness you got in kindergarten? Why should some votes be irrelevant, ignored, or co-opted when there is a completely sane, rational, and easy way to make them equitable and all count? We don't need to placate the immoral slave states anymore. We shouldn't have to prostrate ourselves in front of entrenched corrupt power structures. The country has changed. This should change too.

Or just admit that you like the twisted system that disenfranchises, co-opts, and ignores the voices of the majority of Americans.

No we haven't forgotten. We just fail to understand why laws shouldn't change with changes in values and social maturity without having to reexamine every reason what we have today is so corrupt and racist. Apparently we feel the pull of history is so important that we must re-argue every reason why we reject every step of the past.

 

[TomC]

My vote is irrelevant.
I live in Indiana. It's reliably Republican. Even the Democratic politicians act like Republicans.

Why should my vote be irrelevant?
Tom

Has everyone forgotten their history? Individual sovereign states came together to form a joint national government. For such an arrangement between big and small states, there's a trade off. But ultimately it's the states that matter. Like how many votes does each state get in congress get if no presidential candidate wins the electoral college?

I have not forgotten my history. I'm well aware of how the EC came about. But I also know how much has changed since the 18th century. Both the USA in general and the presidency in particular.
One huge difference is the electorate. We no longer limit voting to wealthy WASP males. Another is the sovereignty of states. For better or worse, states are far more interdependent than they were at the time. That's just a start.

Then there's the presidency itself. Originally, the President wasn't expected to get much involved in domestic issues. Those were the purview of state legislatures. The president was expected to represent the state legislatures to foreign powers. Not The People, the state legislatures.

Things have changed in 200+ years. A lot.
Think about the 2016 presidential election. Three of the biggest issues were

Immigration policy
Federal income tax
Health care policy

None of those even existed when the EC was designed.


That's just a start on the changes since the FF's designed the system. Since then, partisan politicians have rigged the system to maintain their grip on power. Like the winner take all system for states to select EC delegates. Of course, whichever party has a majority in the state legislature can reasonably expect their state to turn out 51% of the vote for their preferred presidential candidate. Who will then help the state legislators stay in power.

The system is rigged to maintain the power of the "two" parties, so they can better service the 1% and get paid for doing so.
Tom

 

[Worldtraveller]

They are not irrelevant, as they often align with the voters of other small states. Why should they give that up and leave to California and New York to decide the winner?

If I were an American, I would say fuck how the small states feel. At the moment the minority is holding the majority hostage in deciding who should represent the United States. If you don't want rural regions being ignored in government, all you have to do is ensure each state has an equal number of representatives in the senate, like every other first world nation does it.

Oh, wait...that's already the case. So it's a bullshit argument that small states would be side lined if the Electoral College ceased to exist. The argument can very easily be made that the most influential person in the US government for the last decade has been the Majority Speaker for the Senate.

Also, because of the Senate, the small states already have a disproportionate amount of power (and given that the senate controls who gets on the courts, they have ridiculous control over 2/3 branches, the EC gives them disproportionate control of all 3, which is often ignored by those in their claims of 'fairness').

The EC needs to be scrapped, and the small states would still have too much control in the US. If they think it makes them irrelevant, they're either too ignorant to be voting, or they're liars.