Gaming the Electoral College

[clw54]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one.

Because he lost.

Wow. Great argument. So far, that's the best argument yet in favor of an electoral college.

So far we have:

* "Because more people can outvote fewer people and that's not fair."
* "States with a lot of empty land should get more say."
* "Because mob rule."
* "Because that's the way it's always been."
* "Because other countries don't have popular vote."

A close election with recounts would be a disaster. Four counties in Florida was bad enough.

[mdwoods]

What ever happened to "majority rules"

[meos1]

What ever happened to "majority rules"

We used to have that here but a leftist changed the system to how we feel now. Besides, the electoral college is a majority system based on get the majority of elector votes.

[mdwoods]

What ever happened to "majority rules"

We used to have that here but a leftist changed the system to how we feel now. Besides, the electoral college is a majority system based on get the majority of elector votes.

I don't think so, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.

[PerryHall]

What ever happened to "majority rules"

We used to have that here but a leftist changed the system to how we feel now. Besides, the electoral college is a majority system based on get the majority of elector votes.

I don't think so, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.

It already happened with the Tilden-Hays election of 1876. Tilden won the popular vote and Hays won the electoral college vote.

[baccaruda]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one.

Because he lost.

Wow. Great argument. So far, that's the best argument yet in favor of an electoral college.

So far we have:

* "Because more people can outvote fewer people and that's not fair."
* "States with a lot of empty land should get more say."
* "Because mob rule."
* "Because that's the way it's always been."
* "Because other countries don't have popular vote."

When you ever get around to it take a few college courses when you have the time.
First take a course on how to debate and have a slight chance of expressing your point.
Second …… reading comprehension 101

And still, no valid arguments...

[baccaruda]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one.

Because he lost.

Wow. Great argument. So far, that's the best argument yet in favor of an electoral college.

So far we have:

* "Because more people can outvote fewer people and that's not fair."
* "States with a lot of empty land should get more say."
* "Because mob rule."
* "Because that's the way it's always been."
* "Because other countries don't have popular vote."

A close election with recounts would be a disaster. Four counties in Florida was bad enough.

Nothing about the process would change though - other than there would be no "electors" in each state. There'd still be votes, collected locally and tabulated. It's just that if there are 3m votes for candidate A and 4m for candidate B in a particluar state, each candidate would get that number of votes - every vote would not go to one candidate.

[baccaruda]

But that's good - at least it was an attempt at an answer rather than personal attacks and specious reasoning.

[mdwoods]

What ever happened to "majority rules"

We used to have that here but a leftist changed the system to how we feel now. Besides, the electoral college is a majority system based on get the majority of elector votes.

I don't think so, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.

It already happened with the Tilden-Hays election of 1876. Tilden won the popular vote and Hays won the electoral college vote.

According to History.com it's happened 5 times. https://www.history.com/news/presidents ... pular-vote

[baccaruda]

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

So, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."

If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?

[walmann]

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

So, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."

If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?

If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?

[baccaruda]

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

So, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."

If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?

If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?

So these 10 families are more important than 10 other families? Tell me why that is.

[mdwoods]

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

So, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."

If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?

If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?

They do have an influence, one person one vote. It's as simple as that. No votes should count more than other votes.

[Rollo Tomassi]

Blacks should get 10 votes apeese.

[mdwoods]

Blacks should get 10 votes apeese.

Plus a million dollars

[walmann]

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

So, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."

If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?

If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?

So these 10 families are more important than 10 other families? Tell me why that is.

You didn't answer my question, why is that? Why would they want you stay? Could the answer be part of why some people leave blue states for red states,? What could thr response be on a national level when large regions or significant numbers of individuals feel disenfranchised?

[FatMan]

If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?

This question gets to the heart of the matter. The USA likely would not exist today if this electoral balancing act was not incorporated into the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution can be amended. But those who insisted on this equalization of elective influence kept that same influence within the process of amending by requiring 75% of states to approve.

The Electoral College will live on as long as the US exists. Cry all you want.

It's a great debate, but nearly the same one that took place in 1787. Without this compromise you might very well be Canadian or Mexican.

[PerryHall]

If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?

This question gets to the heart of the matter. The USA likely would not exist today if this electoral balancing act was not incorporated into the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution can be amended. But those who insisted on this equalization of elective influence kept that same influence within the process of amending by requiring 75% of states to approve.

The Electoral College will live on as long as the US exists. Cry all you want.

It's a great debate, but nearly the same one that took place in 1787. Without this compromise you might very well be Canadian or Mexican.

You are exactly correct. I'm glad someone here actually took an American history course in high school.

[meos1]

Require the ownership of one arce or more of land AND payment of taxes for an individual to vote. Stop letting anyone with a half-baked idea vote. If you own nothing, and owe nothing you will vote for the type of people who are in office at this moment. This goes for with or without an electoral college and can be passed by legislation.

[walmann]

According to History.com it's happened 5 times. https://www.history.com/news/presidents ... pular-vote

Lincoln did not win the popular vote either in 1860. So, in a democracy shouldn't it be only a person receiving more than 50% of the eligible votes be elected? Why make exceptions for votes actually casted, or in cases of multiple candidates a plurality? Should all elections be limited to two candidates only to avoid various scenarios? Which then begs the question is limiting elections to two candidates really democratic? Why in the case of plurality are some votes more important even when they are not a majority?