Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands August 13th, 2016 12:01pm

Should the electoral college be eliminated?

57 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

mfjd1948 rural johnson co iowa
08/23/16 7:52 pm

The electoral college for better or worse has prevented the country from having multiple small competing parties. Thus preventing the country having to form coalition governments in order to govern. With two major factions, one in power and the other a strong opposition the nation is able to function with less turmoil.

Henry123 Connecticut
08/16/16 12:39 pm

No but it should be altered. Votes In each state shouldn't be winner take all they should be proportional but still represented by electoral college numbers

CMD1973 Oxford iowa
08/15/16 1:14 pm

No. The electoral college forces a candidate to appeal to a large cross-section of this country rather than concentrating on only the large metropolitan areas. This is why the writers of the constitution established it.

arttie123 Progressive Independent
08/17/16 8:43 am

Candidates only focus on like 5 states.

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:28 pm

Except that's not true at all. Even with the top 10 biggest cities and their respective metropolitan areas don't even account for 10% of the population, hardly enough to to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.

bugdx California
08/14/16 10:43 pm

The popular vote is a sham, the electoral college elects the president, not the popular vote . Remember bush vs gore? Who elects the electoral college? How could a third party ever penetrate the system?

otto Olean, NY
08/14/16 6:44 pm

That 2/3 of people say yes to this is proof-positive of the poor quality (or perhaps intent) of the public education system and its failure to teach students the Framers' intent when they devised it, how it works, why it is necessary and the consequences should it to be eliminated. Shameful.

Reply
ObeseChipmunk MINNESOTA
08/14/16 6:53 pm

What is your argument defending it?

otto Olean, NY
08/14/16 7:16 pm

America was created, intentionally, as a representative republic. E.C. preserves that.

There are a plethora of walks of life in America. Under direct election, all walks of life between the coasts would be unrepresented in the election.

The interests of citizens of about 48 states would be drowned out by the votes of the masses of people in NY and CA. A grossly non-proportional fraction of nation's population live in these 2 states. They are very similar ideologically and extremely dysfunctional socially, politically and financially. The entire nation would become that.

otto Olean, NY
08/14/16 7:17 pm

Secondarily, presidential candidates would spend zero dollars and zero time in the smaller states, not to mention they would also take zero interest in the concerns of the smaller states. Merely because they know they could earn every vote in the small state and it would not make a difference.

Instead, they will spend all money, time and concern on the large population centers in NY and CA knowing they are the only ones they need to please in order to win.

It was pure genius displayed by the brilliant minds who set the system up, and thoughtful analysis of the alternative has been all but abandoned amid the populist horn blowing the past couple of decades.

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/14/16 8:29 pm

the electoral college is broken some of its members don't even have to vote corresponding to the voting results also it is completely unfair as in most smaller states you need less votes for a single electoral college vote for example we will say in Wyoming 100,000 votes = 1 electoral college vote while in California it could be 150,000 votes=1 electoral college vote. From what I've heard and understand the electoral college was just it by itself voting for president no outside forces influenced it at all besides the people in it. This was to try and make sure the uneducated majority wouldn't pick a crap president.

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/14/16 8:33 pm

but we now (though some would argue otherwise) have a fairly educated population and the electoral college should be disbanded and we should become direct democracy in terms of picking president. The electoral college either needs to be changed to make it correspond and fair or disbanded



I'm not sure if I made this clear in my last one. The electoral college currently makes it where some peoples vote counts more then others which should not be the case

DentedHead
08/15/16 6:29 am

Thanks Otto great explanation.

otto Olean, NY
08/15/16 9:46 am

@Logskin: That is not true. You can't compare my vote in NY to someone's vote in WY. My vote counts as much as anyone else's in NY and in WY everyone's vote counts the same as anyone else's in WY. Every state is a separate contest.

You COULD argue that since NY has about 100 times the population of WY, it should get 100 times as many electoral votes, but that would make anyone's vote in WY absolutely negligible.

Progressives have understood this for over a century, and their 100-year plan accounted for just this argument. On the surface, direct democracy sounds fair and logical and they use that fact to push the population into small geographical areas (i.e. urbanization) and rely on a citizenry misinformed by their public education to yell, "Yeah! Direct election!"

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/15/16 9:54 am

and why can't I compare different peoples vote the straight facts are that someone else vote makes counts more then another vote. And why do we care if they push for more in different states or cities we still can clearly see candidates views through debates and usually their websites. Just because they push in a certain city doesn't mean that they will absolutely vote for them. If the majority of people vote for a president then that person should be president or if we want the electoral college make it where there is no correlation at all to the way people vote in states have it what it should be and just have them vote solely on what they want not on what the results say. Because in the current system it makes people in wymomings vote counts more then more populated states

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/15/16 10:12 am

I'm done arguing this but I will leave a link to show the unfairness of it. If you watch it you can see how there are massive problems with it. I'm not saying there's a perfect way but there needs to be revisions

otto Olean, NY
08/15/16 11:40 am

youtu.be/A5p-u-qMH1Q

Your video's creator has a few misrepresentations (that we are a democracy, for one) and at least one contradiction: he complains how OH has only 18 electoral votes when he feels it should have 20, but then talks about how so much time and money is spent by candidates there. Why spend so much time and money in an under-represented state?

Anyway, this guy has a better answer. Don't abolish college. Reform it. Either expand beyond 435 representatives or split electoral votes by district. That would at the very least preserve a semblance of the federalism that is supposed to be our governmental system as opposed to a democracy.

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:29 pm

Accept that it would have a much more positive effect than a negative one. If you want info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.

otto Olean, NY
08/18/16 3:18 am

My link is to a rebuttal of the video of which you speak. Believe me, I watched it.

ZacDave
08/14/16 3:38 am

Even if we accept the argument that the college represents states, the electoral college is still a failure. It take votes away from more populous states and gives extra voting power to states with smaller populations. As a Californian, my vote counts several times less than someone from Vermont or Wyoming. That's pretty unacceptable IMO.

Reply
otto Olean, NY
08/14/16 6:47 pm

Actually, it is the only thing saving us from the entire country becoming like California.

ShawPPM1214 Washington
08/14/16 1:25 am

I see pros and cons to both. But as a conservative in Washington state my vote for president doesn't really matter. My state will vote blue. It would be nice if my
Vote actually did something.

Rileyrocks678 Virginia
08/14/16 10:56 am

That's exactly why the electoral college should be eliminated

otto Olean, NY
08/15/16 10:38 am

Shaw, I feel your pain as a conservative in NY state. But as dire as it seems for conservatism in America, if there was no E.C. it would be game-over for certain.

As it is, we can still hold out hope in our traditional red states (fewer all the time, but still...) winning and every few elections being able to sway a handful of purple states our way.

Without it, we're doomed for sure. With Soros spending so much to organize voting drives on the left. With the left's unconstitutional impediment of state voter ID laws. With the left's largely unopposed insistence that illegals come here, stay here and vote here (because they can't be IDd).

We could completely write off America as a progressive-socialist oligarchy by 2020 without electoral college.

Hang tough, brother!

Macmurphy35 Alabama
08/13/16 10:27 pm

Yes, definitely, because if we got rid of it then there'd be absolutely no risk of having another republican president. But as an election process in general, in order to ensure each state has a representative voice, it's probably best to keep it.

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
08/13/16 9:32 pm

No. If you want your vote to count, you need the Electoral College (unless you just live in one of the five biggest cities).

Reply
Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 11:27 pm

That's not true at all.

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:31 pm

Not true at all. Even if you had the top 10 most populated cities and their respective metropolitan areas, you still wouldn't have even 10% of the population, hardly enough to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
08/13/16 7:10 pm

Definitely pros and cons, but helping protect the interests of the more rural states is reason enough to keep it. The last thing normal people want is for city people to make any of the decisions that affect us all without regulation and adult supervision.

Reply
Macmurphy35 Alabama
08/13/16 10:29 pm

It's very annoying and frustrating having a smaller amount of rural people determine federal laws that affect a larger amount of city people (house of representatives).

Zod Above Pugetropolis
08/13/16 11:01 pm

You could make a case for that in the senate, maybe, where WY with a half million people and CA with 39 million each get two. Not in the House, where seven states out of the fifty only get one representative each, and CA alone gets 53.

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/14/16 8:36 pm

yes but by protecting the smaller states we also make the smaller states votes count more. so a citizen in wyomings vote is worth more then someone in California's

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:33 pm

Except that even with the top 20 most populated cities with their respective metropolitan areas, you still wouldn't have even 10% of the country's population, hardly enough to win. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.

Demographics New York
08/13/16 5:09 pm

"It makes sure people pay attention to the small states!!!" How many times are Wyoming and Hawaii visited by candidates? How many times are New York and California visited? Gimme a break.

California: 38.8 million people
Electoral Votes: 55
38,800,000/55 = ~705,000 people per electoral vote

Wyoming: 584,000 people
Electoral Votes: 3
584,000/3 = ~194,000 people per electoral vote

Nobody sees a problem with this?

Reply
Wizzobutter
08/13/16 7:30 pm

The problem with the electoral college is that in many states, all electoral votes go to the one with the most votes. In effect, the whole population of that state is considered to have voted for that candidate. It's why most politicians only will campaign in the so called battle states. I thin one or two states divide the electoral votes by voting districts.

cvandykemo
08/13/16 9:04 pm

Maine and Nebraska award one elector for the victor of each congressional district in the respective state plus two electors for the candidate who gets the most votes overall statewide. It makes a lot more sense to me than "winner take all" in the rest of the other 48 states and would make electoral college results more in line with the popular vote if all states were to adopt this method.

ChandlerMBing
08/13/16 4:18 pm

If we get rid of the electoral college, individual states no longer have sovereignty and an individual voice if their own, of course it should stay.

Reply
smoothboy1982 Lexington Ky
08/13/16 6:47 pm

That makes no sense. We need to implement popular vote!

Wizzobutter
08/13/16 7:32 pm

They do still have a voice. They are called congressmen (congresswomen)

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/14/16 8:37 pm

chandler that was awful of course they have a voice in government it's called the legislative branch

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/13/16 3:41 pm

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

No.

Otherwise the larger states can just bully the others.

How are people ignorant of its purpose?!

You all took the Constitution test!

Reply
PointB Libertarian Centrist
08/13/16 6:51 pm

Bully is an incorrect term for it. It forces the smaller states to conform to a popular candidate. If the smaller states had a lot of power they could overrule the popular vote. Also it can create a system where people could win without the popular vote. Let's suppose there are 100 people in the U.S split into ten groups. If the Orange party wins 6 people in 6 groups and loses all the other groups completely it would allow an orange candidate to win with 36 votes over the 64 of the other party.

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/13/16 8:29 pm

"Conform"...

"Stupid little states, don't know what's good for 'em"...

๐Ÿ™„

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/14/16 8:39 pm

it's unfair tilton it makes a Wyoming vote matter more then someone in California so in reality it's more like the smaller states bullying the larger ones

TheLogskin cant be stoopin the Putin
08/14/16 8:40 pm

and smaller states already have the senate did that not give them enough power and equal footing

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:38 pm

If the the purpose of the Electoral College was to give smaller states more power and fight the big states, it's failed miserably. I'm not good at explaining things, so I'm just going to detect you to a video called "The Trouble with the Electoral College" by CGP Grey on YouTube. It explains why we should abolish the Electoral College, by showing all of its problems, one being that it does not give smaller states more voting power

SonofThunder peace
08/13/16 2:54 pm

Eliminate it. It's outdated.

Reply
TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:56 pm

How? And what would not be "outdated" in a hundred years if we changed it?

SonofThunder peace
08/13/16 2:58 pm

My vote actually counting will never be outdated.

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 3:00 pm

How exactly is it not counted? Unless you don't vote.....

SonofThunder peace
08/13/16 3:02 pm

If you vote democrat in Texas or you vote conservative in California: your vote doesn't count.

I should rephrase. If it wasn't winner take all I'd be happy.

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 3:07 pm

As someone who has fled the People's Republic of California, I do agree it kinda sucks when my vote isn't counted in the total. But it doesn't "not count". And it gives a voice to those who aren't in huge cities. If it was just a popular vote, only the big cities would get any attention. And if it was not winner take all, it wouldn't be the Electoral College anyway.

JacobM California
08/13/16 5:45 pm

If you don't live in a swing state, for example, voting Republican in California means NOTHING. California Republicans might as well not vote because the electoral college is winner take all

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 5:47 pm

That's part of why I left!

smoothboy1982 Lexington Ky
08/13/16 6:53 pm

I live in Kentucky that has always been conservative, so my vote no matter if I vote liberal is always going to the republicans, so why should we keep this outdated electoral college BS in place. Why the hell do we do super delegates? Our voting system is crap

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 7:07 pm

Super delegates are only in the Dem primary. Electoral College is general election.

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:53 pm

Good luck with amending the Constitution to do that.

hudsondl
08/13/16 2:42 pm

It is amazing to me that people that swear by The Constitution and the founding fathers on the items they like want eliminate the electoral college. The same people who gave you the second amendment when both the military and civilians just had muskets gave you the electoral college. Perhaps you should read why they did

Reply
TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:54 pm

Ummm about even percentages of both parties said they wanted to get rid of it so idk why you just want to bitch about conservatives....

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:55 pm

Actually I was wrong. More Republicans than Democrats want to get rid of it so your bitching is pretty misplaced.

BossHogg Kentucky
08/13/16 4:08 pm

I'm a conservative Republican and I am in favor of the electoral college, who exactly are you referring to?

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
08/13/16 2:19 pm

No one can say we have any sort of democracy. What a joke.

coloradical Vote or Shut Up
08/13/16 1:37 pm

During Obamas last 8 years he has re-apportioned and carved out a slanted re-districting plan that heavily favors the Democrats in the Electoral College in the next election. If the Republican voters allow the Establishment RINO's like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, John Kasich & Ted Cruz to Thwart Trumps Presidential Bid then the Electoral College will be further Transformed in the Democrats favor and may prevent a Republican from ever winning an Election again in America.

Reply
TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:56 pm

Ted Cruz is part of the Establishment? What?

augustin Oklahoma
08/13/16 4:05 pm

Tiredofit, just let the Trump supporters vent. They got their man, and when he gets destroyed by Hillary they'll have to own him. They don't care about uniting the party, and it will cost them. Their anger blinds them to Cruz's anti-establishment actions in the senate.

ChandlerMBing
08/13/16 4:31 pm

What makes you think Cruz is establishment? Given Ted's Senate record of NOT caving to Dem's demands(something Grandma Mitch does quite a bit)the establishment of the party can't stand Cruz. They hate Trump, but Ted isn't their poster boy.

ChandlerMBing
08/13/16 4:45 pm

Cruz a RINO? Are you serious?Jeb, Johnny, Mitt and Don are RINO's,no doubt. But while Ted was arguing pro 2nd amendment cases in SCOTUS, D.T. was writing checks to Liberals' Senate and Presidential campaigns. Spare me your ignorance. Spare all of us.

coloradical Vote or Shut Up
08/13/16 9:00 pm

The Bush-Cruz connection is clear. Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for president. A top policy adviser, Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bush man with deep ties to the political and financial establishment. Ted and wife Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice. Condi helped give us the phony war in Iraq. Heidi then went to the Bush U.S. Trade Representative as a top deputy to U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick, who wired Heidi’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and job at Goldman Sachs. The bailed-out bank then loaned Cruz $1 million secretly to finance his Senate race. Crux would also borrow an undisclosed $1 million loan from Citicorp.

coloradical Vote or Shut Up
08/13/16 9:02 pm

I was in disbelief like the rest of you until I did a little research on Cruz and his fake anti-establishment posture.

augustin Oklahoma
08/13/16 9:02 pm

Then why has he been one of the very few to stand up to the establishment as a senator?

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 9:06 pm

And the actual establishment Senate leadership hates him just for the fun of it. Got it.

BossHogg Kentucky
08/13/16 1:26 pm

The electoral college is needed, it gives a voice to areas of the country that are not as condensed population wise (farming communities etc.). Otherwise the heavily populated coastal cities would essentially speak for and therefore run the country. The interest of a farmer in Nebraska is not the same as a white collar person in New York.

Reply
phalnx Ohio
08/13/16 1:33 pm

So you're in favor of giving certain minority segments of our population a disproportionate share of power? Seems rather elitist to me.

BossHogg Kentucky
08/13/16 1:41 pm

They don't get a disproportionate electoral amount, this is why my state of Kentucky only gets 8 electoral votes, Indiana and Tennessee 11 and so on. California gets a huge number in comparison due to its large population.

Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 1:44 pm

This isn't true at all. Only a select number of states get the most attention now. The top 10 populated cities are only 8% of the vote. That's not anywhere close for them to focus only on big cities

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
08/13/16 2:20 pm

More reason to break up this nonsense and operate as sovereign States, ala Europe

BossHogg Kentucky
08/13/16 2:33 pm

While I like the idea of states rights as well, Europe is in shambles because of the European Union. If there was anything we didn't want to emulate, it should be the Europeans.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
08/13/16 4:08 pm

So don't do the common currency or fix what's broken.

Because THIS isn't working out

coloradical Vote or Shut Up
08/13/16 9:07 pm

Amen BossHogg on not emulating the EU.

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:41 pm

Except that's not the case at all. Even with the top 100 most populated cities, you wouldn't even have 20% of the vote, hardly enough to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.

materman New Hampshire Libertarian
08/13/16 12:37 pm

Fixed not eliminated. Direct democracy would be awful in close elections

Reply
DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
08/13/16 1:20 pm

Direct democracy is when the people decide the legislation.

materman New Hampshire Libertarian
08/13/16 1:25 pm

I thought it was when everyone votes and whatever option has the most votes wins

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:58 pm

Yes, but for legislation, not for people.

pineappiejuice San Antonio
08/13/16 12:15 pm

Instant. Runoff. Voting.

Reply
SHIPPY1944 Tn.
08/13/16 11:14 am

Before overhauling or eliminating the Electoral College. Voter fraud needs to be eliminated. Everything from non registered & illegals voting, to the โ˜  dead voters in Chicago, who rise every 4 years to vote 100% DemLib !

Reply
DounutHole
08/13/16 12:31 pm

There has been 31 cases of voter fraud in over one billion votes cast. There is virtually no voter fraud in the United States. Please show us all confirmed massive fraud voting in America, because it doesn't exist!

TiredofIt Texas
08/13/16 2:58 pm

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't catch voter fraud as it happens, then you will never know it happened.

Someonethirsty A lake
08/13/16 3:08 pm

"Well you can't DISPROVE there's an invisible pink elephant next to me!"

DounutHole
08/13/16 8:05 pm

And I believe in the tooth fairy๐Ÿ˜‚ There is no vote fraud!

TiredofIt Texas
08/15/16 9:38 am

There is no vote fraud that you can prove. If we check IDs then you will be able to ensure and prove that there is no vote fraud.

SHIPPY1944 Tn.
08/18/16 8:21 am

Your a DemLib Jackass๐Ÿด, so I can prove, there will never be elephant next to you pink or any other color๐Ÿ˜ ๐Ÿ˜‚

TiredofIt Texas
08/18/16 9:37 am

lol coming from the guy who doesn't understand that if you don't have a way to prove something, you can't prove or disprove it.

TheCameron UCF
08/13/16 11:13 am

Eliminating it would make candidates campaign for every vote in every states and not just independent and undecided voters in FL, Ohio, VA, and the like.

Reply
TheCameron UCF
08/13/16 11:14 am

Not that I don't like the attention as a Florida voter and all.

ConservativeCA Joe Biden is barely alive
08/13/16 10:54 am

It makes it so only 10 out of the 40 states are relevant to those running for President. It's make my vote totally worthless, being a Conservative in California, as it would to a liberal in Texas. The answer is to be a real democracy and make every citizens vote equal.

Reply
TheCameron UCF
08/13/16 11:11 am

40 states?

ConservativeCA Joe Biden is barely alive
08/13/16 11:12 am

40 states are already pretty much decided each election. Candidates only campaign in about 10 and only about 10 are battleground states that matter.

TheCameron UCF
08/13/16 11:13 am

I know what you meant, but it should be "10 out of the 50 states"

ConservativeCA Joe Biden is barely alive
08/13/16 11:16 am

Hahaha my bad. I didn't see that

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
08/13/16 1:22 pm

A real democracy wouldn't have any of this representative bullshit every four years. In a real democracy, we the people determine which laws we want to live under.

DeathSheep Michigan
08/13/16 7:21 pm

But we aren't a democracy, we are a democratic republic.

AmericanHero Oregon
08/13/16 10:42 am

I wouldn't get rid of it, just change it.

Reply
minormajority Utah
08/13/16 10:53 am

I agree. We have to have much better voter turnout to eliminate it all together. A popular vote represents just as poor a sample as the electoral college.

DeathSheep Michigan
08/13/16 10:39 am

My biggest hope is that there is enough vote for a third party to break the electoral system.

Reply
Gunfighter06 Iowa, since 1846
08/13/16 10:32 am

No, because it's reliable enough and it stands as a reminder that the states are still important bastions of political power.

rambo088 kansas
08/13/16 10:32 am

Get rid of the winner takes all rule at the very least. Make each district independent

Reply
spicysteve M14D SBS
08/13/16 10:44 am

Not a good idea. That would make the district drawing process even worse

rambo088 kansas
08/13/16 10:48 am

How would it be worse? They are already drawn to give a vote to a party.

spicysteve M14D SBS
08/13/16 10:58 am

Because those lines change regularly, which would take even more power away from the people. And it would create a big advantage for one Party.

rambo088 kansas
08/13/16 10:59 am

Because California and texas don't have an unfair advantage with winner takes all

spicysteve M14D SBS
08/13/16 11:03 am

Not at the moment they don't. They're baked in.

What I'm arguing is this- the outcome of two or three presidential elections would be predetermined by whomever drew the congressional district boundaries.

rambo088 kansas
08/13/16 11:06 am

It would be less easy to predict if the minority wasn't silenced.

spicysteve M14D SBS
08/13/16 11:08 am

I have no idea what you're talking about

spicysteve M14D SBS
08/13/16 10:30 am

I'm for popular vote. Everybody's vote should have equal value.

Reply
MurrayHitchens The Truth Wins Out
08/13/16 10:29 am

I don't like the delegates but the smaller states should remain more counter balanced from the mob rule of larger populations because this is supposed to be the United *States* not the United *State*.

Reply
Irrilogical New Jersey
08/13/16 10:25 am

Well no cause it's not a RIGGED SYSTEM ITS A REPUBLIC everyone forgets that that's really what we are

Reply
BleadingHeart I hate America
08/13/16 11:11 am

We would still be a republic if the president is elected by popular vote. Republic- a form of government where the citizens elect their representatives to make policy decisions. Your "it's a republic" argument clearly doesn't work here.

Irrilogical New Jersey
08/13/16 11:16 am

Yes but major republics do have things like the electoral college and PERSONALLY I don't see a problem with it. Sure sometimes it's a real piece of Shit but it keeps dumbasses from getting elected. I know everyones vote matters, but sometimes the people are just REALLY DUMB and the college has to pick the smarty choice for the country and go against their will. After this election with the people voting in two of the most unfavorable candidates ever I'm GLAD we have one. Also we've always had it since the start of our country so we WERE founded to be like this, so why change it ?

Irrilogical New Jersey
08/13/16 11:16 am

This is just my personal opinion tho

hemikid1993
08/13/16 10:19 am

Absolutely! It's a rigged system that should not exist.

Reply
sea California
08/13/16 10:09 am

No. If you're gonna do that why not abolish states as well?

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
08/13/16 1:24 pm

Because the states still govern over there boundaries too.

ChandlerMBing
08/13/16 10:07 am

They should be awarded on the basis of the majority vote of each individual congressional district, not the winner-take-all that we have in 48 states, and certainly not eliminated.

Reply
DiQuellaPira
08/13/16 9:59 am

I'd like to see the electors awarded by the vote in each congressional district rather than the winner take all system we currently have

redrooster1
08/13/16 9:55 am

At the very least eliminate the so-called super-delegates and require a valid I.D.

Reply
ChandlerMBing
08/13/16 10:05 am

Super delegates are used in the nominating conventions, not the electoral vote, but yes, they should be eliminated.

Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 9:42 am

Yes, and even if the president were elected by popular vote we would still be a republic. So the "no we are a republic" argument doesn't work.

Reply
BtbWilkinson Utah
08/13/16 9:33 am

It needs restored, and the party system ended.

Reply
suppressedID keep Summer safe
08/13/16 9:06 am

And make the Midwest even more irrelevant??

Hmmm...๐Ÿค”

Mattwall1
08/13/16 9:55 am

I honestly can't say a popular vote would do that. The Midwest (ftr I'm using the Census' definition of the region) has a little over 1/5 the population, it's home to much of the Corn Belt (and the simultaneous breadbasket) as well as some major urban areas, and the region as the whole is purple enough (combined with a history of swinging) that a popular vote wouldn't hurt the region. If anything, it might actually be helped.

Mattwall1
08/13/16 9:56 am

That being said, there are advantages and disadvantages to both the Electoral College and a national popular vote, but the Midwest probably has a best of both worlds scenario

Sipher95 Kansas
08/17/16 3:43 pm

It wouldn't though. Because even if you added up the top 100 most populated cities, you still wouldn't get even 20% of the population, hardly enough to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.

Spiritof76 USA 1776
08/13/16 8:39 am

With the current electoral college system, only 6 states matter, the rest are irrelevant. Needs an overhaul.

Reply
Red4799 Asking the Big Questions
08/13/16 8:41 am

Gives power to the states. Besides there isn't really anything wrong with it. People just complain when it doesn't align with the popular vote, which doesn't even make sense since the electoral is more important.

dp16 Maryland
08/13/16 8:56 am

In what world is it fair to have the majority lose? Especially in a democracy

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/13/16 9:20 am

We aren't a democracy.

We are a republic.

dragondoy777
08/13/16 9:34 am

We are a democracy in a republic.

Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 9:39 am

A republic with democratically elected leaders.

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/13/16 11:26 am

Which is a republic...

๐Ÿ™„

dp16 Maryland
08/13/16 11:54 am

You do realize that the US form of government doesn't have to be labeled by only one word? It is indeed a republic because it is governed by elected leaders. It is also a constitutional form of government because the government (is supposed to) abide by the Constitution. Additionally, it is a representative democracy. These various descriptions of government are not mutually exclusive of each other and are all correct.

dp16 Maryland
08/13/16 12:10 pm

@red, suppose you have 10 friends and are deciding where to eat as one group. Six friends want to go to restaurant A and the other four restaurant B. It doesn't make sense for all 10 people to go to restaurant B because that's what the least amount of people want. That's what happens with the electoral college. It makes no sense to elect a president who got more electoral votes than the runner up who got the popular vote. This country has the principle of majority rule with minority rights. The majority should decide who's president not some archaic system that holds no true value today. The all or nothing electoral college system completely ignores potentially millions of voters who voted for candidate number 2 because he lost to candidate number 1 by as little as one vote.

Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 12:45 pm

Exactly, we can still have a republic without the electoral college ๐Ÿ™„

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/13/16 3:25 pm

Yes, it should alway be labeled by two words...

Constitutional Republic.

Period.

That's it. No discussion or attempted twisting.

Textbook definition.

Black and white. Zero grey area.

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/13/16 3:28 pm

You can type all you want. Don't care.

Hell, use the entire charcuterie limit.

Doesn't matter.

Constitutional Republic.

I can do it in 22 letters.

MadCow True GOP
08/14/16 11:51 pm

Why is there always someone who gets their panties on a knot about the democracy-republic thing?
We all know. It was in the Pledge of Allegiance. It's just a crutch. Let it go.

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
08/17/16 5:42 am

Then stop saying "we're a democracy" and I will.

whiplash29 ohio
08/13/16 8:34 am

If it were eliminated the Republican party would be no more.....so yes

Reply
SHIPPY1944 Tn.
08/13/16 10:47 am

Just what the U.S. Needs a unopposed DemLib party running everything, it's worked so well, & done such a "fabulous job" the past 8yrs NOT !!!!!!!!๐Ÿ˜ฑ

whiplash29 ohio
08/13/16 1:24 pm

It sure wasn't unopposed, but despite all the gloom and doom from the right, at least the economy is growing.

wmorriso Indiana, US ofA
08/13/16 8:30 am

To date no one on either side of the political aisle has come up with a viable replacement that political opposites will agree with. So before we dump something that may not be the best but is working, lets first develop and proof a working replacement.

Reply
akrealist a log cabin in the woods
08/13/16 8:28 am

As my state's voters in the presidential election are always for "show"... I focus on state and local elections.

The lousy thing about voting in a state where the total population is less than 750,000 (and also on the west coast) is that your presidential vote is never going to matter - electoral college or not. The good thing, however, is that you have an opportunity to actually know your government representatives. I know all of them, and they know me by first name, because I choose to be involved.

Reply
geoag02 Dallas, TX
08/13/16 8:18 am

No, we should keep it just like it is and better educate people on exactly what it is, how it works and how they can participate.

Reply
PutinItUp New Jersey
08/13/16 8:16 am

We're a republic, so let's keep it that way, how the founding fathers intended.

Reply
Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 9:50 am

We'd still be a republic if it were a popular vote

PutinItUp New Jersey
08/13/16 10:06 am

Wouldn't we be a direct democracy? Or am I mistaken?

Yankeemike Sell the Knicks Dolan
08/13/16 10:19 am

No because we'd still have representatives who make the calls.

PutinItUp New Jersey
08/13/16 10:36 am

Nonetheless, I'd rather keep the electoral college. I don't trust the general public with large decisions such as that, because they can be heavily swayed by emotion, rather than facts.