Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How's that? California and New York have Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Greens and Constitutionalists and all the rest.

Go beyond the hype.

Yes, and all of our toothbrushes have fecal-matter particles on them, but not enough to make a difference to the health of our bodies.

Not to mention the bacterial content of the average mouth.

What's your point?

There are no "Red States" or "Blue States" is the point I was making.

Electoral college is fine.

Having 3 states that pretty much determine every election is not. We need North Cali, South Cali, North NY, and South NY. Or something similar.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Electoral college is fine.

Having 3 states that pretty much determine every election is not. We need North Cali, South Cali, North NY, and South NY. Or something similar.

Why don't you want to split up Texas or Florida? Seems a bit one-sided.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It came across that your implication is that there are plenty of non-Democrat party participants to matter in Cali and NY, which there are not. That was my point.

My analogy was comparing the constant (and often, enlarging) body of Democrats to one's body, and the fecal matter being introduced to that body to all of the other political parties that you mentioned. Just because they exist and oppose the existence of the body doesn't mean that they're going to make any difference just by being there in too-small of numbers to matter.

I didn't think that I'd have to explain that.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Electoral college is fine.

Having 3 states that pretty much determine every election is not. We need North Cali, South Cali, North NY, and South NY. Or something similar.

IDK f there's much difference between north and south California but Buffalo sure ain't NYC.

Considering the distribution of society. There are many poor and few rich. Not surprisingly, the party that offers welfare always wins majority of votes. But that does not mean it is the right path for society as a whole. So popular vote should not determine who wins.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I usually say what I mean without relying on implication (at least when I'm seriously discussing a topic).

California had 4.4 million people vote for Mr. Trump. That's 31% of the vote. That's not an insignificant number by any means.

New York had 2.8 million people vote for Mr. Trump. That's about 37% of the vote. Again, not insignificant.

These numbers also change over time and are not set in stone.

It sounds like you're making an argument not to vote if you think you're not going to win? Sounds defeatist.

My point is that every State has all parties represented. Every State is usually closely matched (60/40 seems average) in terms of Dems and Reps.

I hear people talk about Cali and NY all the time, never about Texas or FL (the same # of EC votes as NY). Why is that?

I find myself having to explain stuff all the time on here, so you shouldn't be surprised. Like now.

originally posted by: zipruna
Considering the distribution of society. There are many poor and few rich. Not surprisingly, the party that offers welfare always wins majority of votes. But that does not mean it is the right path for society as a whole. So popular vote should not determine who wins.

Update your argument. a) "Welfare" isn't what you think it is. b) Red States use more "welfare" than Blue ones.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

originally posted by: zipruna
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Do you want me to teach you something, or do you want to keep spouting that rather ill-informed belief?

ETA: Actually, I withdraw the offer; why waste my time.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey


California had 4.4 million people vote for Mr. Trump. That's 31% of the vote. That's not an insignificant number by any means.

New York had 2.8 million people vote for Mr. Trump. That's about 37% of the vote. Again, not insignificant.

Both of those percentages are absolutely insignificant when the determination of the way a state voted collectively can determine which candidate receive all of a state's electoral votes. That is the context in which I am speaking on the subject matter. But seriously, less than 1/3 of California voters voted Trump--that's a pretty bad, percentage-wise. Less than 2/5 voted for Trump in NY...again, pretty bad. When it's the one-vote-more-than-half scenario, anything not in the high 40s is statistically terrible.

It sounds like you're making an argument not to vote if you think you're not going to win? Sounds defeatist.

Like you, I rarely imply things--if that's what I meant, I would have stated that. We're not talking about arguing if voting matters, we're only talking about the political make-up of two states. That's all I'm discussing, and nothing more.

My point is that every State has all parties represented. Every State is usually closely matched (60/40 seems average) in terms of Dems and Reps.

So what if all parties are represented--that's not what matters in a one-vote-more-than-half system. A 60/40 split is garbage if you're trying to argue that there is plenty of representation in the 40% side to make a difference in these elections: There isn't, and that's all that my point has been.

Citing that there are people existing in all parties is an unnecessary point in this discussion.

I hear people talk about Cali and NY all the time, never about Texas or FL (the same # of EC votes as NY). Why is that?

I can't answer for other people.

I find myself having to explain stuff all the time on here, so you shouldn't be surprised. Like now.

But, overall, your explanation was irrelevant to the actual discussion--citing the existence of all parties is a strawman that holds zero relevancy when we're talking about a majority-rules system.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In rough order of your presentation:

Sounds like you're against the winner-take-all/mob rule system in place for the EC. From an observational point, I don't disagree if that's so.

At the moment, however, it's the way we do things.

As long as we follow the Constitution fairly, I don't care. The individual States (which, under the Tenth Amendment, decide how to chose their Electors) can let monkeys throw darts at a board to choose Electors. I would prefer, if we are going to change things, an apportioned plan in which each State's Electors are chosen on the total popular vote for that State, not merely who "won" the simple majority.

The relative percentages between D and R shift from election to election and from State to State, as we saw in 2016.

60/40 split between Democrats and Republicans is "garbage"? Sorry, that's the way Americans roll. A tad more seriously, I'm not arguing that 40% will overcome 60% in a winner-take-all scenario (and I think you know that). I'm saying that there are, in every State, a significant population of "the other" party which should not be discounted or ignored.

No, as a matter of fact, political party is at the heart of this discussion; it's absurd to claim otherwise.

I'm not asking you to "answer for" other people except perhaps rhetorically.

I'll rephrase: are you concerned about States like Texas and Florida that also have large numbers of EC votes wrecking the system in the same you seem to be with CA and NY? If not, why not?

LOL, irrelevant? Not all all, and certainly not as irrelevant as comparing minority parties to fecal matter in a toothbrush.

Again, parties don't matter? Fine, then there's no reason to be concerned about how CA and NY vote. (You're disputing your own argument here.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey

A tad more seriously, I'm not arguing that 40% will overcome 60% in a winner-take-all scenario (and I think you know that). I'm saying that there are, in every State, a significant population of "the other" party which should not be discounted or ignored.

Here's the issue with this claim, though--I agree that the losing party should not be discounted, but in states like Cali and NY (and even in very red states), they have become so politically extreme on one side or the other that the other party IS ignored, if not just massively marginalized, and this goes for state and local policies.

I grew up in California for the early half of my 38-year-old life, and in my adult life, I have watched that state move farther and farther to the left in its official policies and governance. So, I fully believe that "'the other' party" gets marginalized greatly in states like this. Hell, my professors at my art school in TN used to always bemoan how difficult it is to be "blue" in an always "red" state--they always felt marginalized.

I'll rephrase: are you concerned about States like Texas and Florida that also have large numbers of EC votes wrecking the system in the same you seem to be with CA and NY? If not, why not?

I don't see the states as "wrecking the system" as you claim I do, I see the state laws governing the apportionment of their EC votes as being the bigger issue. I feel that each EC should represent the majority of people in their represented area, plain and simple. While this sounds as though it mimics winner-take-all in the grand scheme and seems to render the EC useless, it really doesn't, because it allows for areas within a state who may truly have many independent voters to sway back and for between red and blue.


The winner-takes-all method used in places like CA and NY, which such a massively disproportionate block of democrat voters (statistically speaking for voting purposes) does a disservice to the original concept of the EC, IMO.

Again, parties don't matter? Fine, then there's no reason to be concerned about how CA and NY vote. (You're disputing your own argument here.)

Show me where I EVER said parties don't matter in the way that you're using it during this discussion...you're bastardizing what I said to make my comments sound contradictory.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think we can fix the political divide in this country with changes to the EC.

The argument in general here is that the EC somehow protects the US from "mob rule" by empowering the smaller States. Given that the whole thing is a numbers game (Electors are awarded based on winner-take-all from the popular vote, the EC winner is winner-take-all) there's really no way to argue this.

If every state had One Elector, that might make some sense. Given the current system, in which population determines 80% or so of the number of Electors, it's irrelevant.

I asked a question about "wrecking the states" ... and you've answered the question.

Winner take all is used in 48 of the 50 States. California and NY tend to go Democrat, Texas Republican, and FL varies.

As far as your comments regarding "parties don't matter" :

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
We're not talking about arguing if voting matters, we're only talking about the political make-up of two states. That's all I'm discussing, and nothing more.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So what if all parties are represented--that's not what matters in a one-vote-more-than-half system. A 60/40 split is garbage if you're trying to argue that there is plenty of representation in the 40% side to make a difference in these elections: There isn't, and that's all that my point has been.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But, overall, your explanation was irrelevant to the actual discussion--citing the existence of all parties is a strawman that holds zero relevancy when we're talking about a majority-rules system.

If you aren't talking about "political parties" in these comments, what are you talking about?

If you are, my observation stands.

a reply to: Metallicus

Trump back in 2012 on Twitter after Obama's win when Trump thought Obama was going to lose the popular vote:

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided

twitter.com...

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

twitter.com...

More votes equals a loss...revolution!

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

twitter.com...

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

twitter.com...

a reply to: Regnor

I'd love to have the sources on those. Can you provide a link?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I added the links. It appears that he deleted a few of them though.

originally posted by: Regnor
a reply to: Gryphon66

I added the links. It appears that he deleted a few of them though.

I'm sure he did. Thanks.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're missing my point. On a local level, mob rule makes some sense. Like attracts like and you end up with communities that share similar values and priorities setting their own policies. I clearly said on the national level it doesn't work at all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

US is a Representative republic, which means the electoral college is intertwined completely with the US Senate proportionality. Not everyone is going to get what they want and, frankly, some voters live in states where their "against the stream" voting will effectively self-disenfranchise them.