4 ms·

As the other children comments noted, I think the biggest problem of the system is game theory wise that there is no considerable pay-off when voting in a heavi

by tekkk 6y ago

As the other children comments noted, I think the biggest problem of the system is game theory wise that there is no considerable pay-off when voting in a heavily blue or red state. There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes, or just straight popular vote. Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? The most popular candidate should win?

syshum 6y ago
>>> Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? Which is exactly why the founders set up the electoral collage in the first place, because they had no desire for a strait democracy, nor do I democracy is 2 wolfs and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, I have no desire to live in such a system. I prefer a constitutional republic of independent states bound by a common defense, economic and legal system aka the United States of America >There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes Something like that be done under the current system in fact 2 states already do this by Proportionally allocating their electors instead of winner take all There is nothing under the current system preventing a state from doing that Personally I have always been in favor of Every congressional District being awarded by the popular vote of that district, which would leave 2 "At Large" votes per state to be given out based on the popular vote of the state.
- noahtallen 6y ago
  How does the concept of the electoral college protect the republic any more than a popular vote? It seems to be a layer of indirection rather than anything useful. If it was useful for preventing poor candidates, I feel it’s not working that well. The effect it has is to amplify the voice of sparsely populated states. Do we actually think that these states are more qualified to decide what we have to dinner (or more qualified to protect the republic?) I’m also unsure how breaking down the popular vote by district helps to protect the republic further. Why not just use the popular vote (or even better, RCV or approval voting) instead of adding these layers of indirection?
  - syshum 6y ago
    It depends on how you view the nation. I view each state as a sovereign entity that internally pick who (as a state) they desire to lead the federal government. Then as 1 voice they tell the other states who that person is. At a basic level this would mean each state only got 1 vote no matter how many people where in that state. As a compromise from that, the system of proportional representation was created. Originally this was designed at a time where the Senate was not elected by popular vote but instead the Senate was appointed by the legislatures of each state not by popular vote. Something I also would support returning to The House of Representatives was to be the only pure democratic body in the US Government. The electoral college part of State Sovereignty respecting that we are a Union of states. the 17th amendment reduced State Sovereignty considerably and IMO has lead to some very large negative effects including the politicization of court system but that is a whole other topic Since at least the 1920's there has been a strong push attempting to reduce the power of the State government and centralize the power of the Federal Government. In short a strong push to transform the United States of America away from a republic of states, to a single universal government. To those wanting to transform the nation the preferred model is Direct Democracy one with no Natural or inherent rights, and no Constitution. To those people if the majority desires it, that should be the law of the land.... That is not a constitutional republic form of government. The attack on the Electoral College is a direct attack on the constitutional republic As to RCV or other voting methods besides First past the post. That has nothing to Electoral College, you can implement RCV (which I would support as well) with out eliminating the Electoral College
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  The founders set up the electoral college because a powerful faction of them didn't want the full collage of skin colors to be enfranchised, or even freed from slavery, in their new republic. Any other story is anti-historical hogwash. History is what it is.

by tekkk 6y ago

syshum 6y ago

>>> Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? Which is exactly why the founders set up the electoral collage in the first place, because they had no desire for a strait democracy, nor do I democracy is 2 wolfs and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, I have no desire to live in such a system. I prefer a constitutional republic of independent states bound by a common defense, economic and legal system aka the United States of America >There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes Something like that be done under the current system in fact 2 states already do this by Proportionally allocating their electors instead of winner take all There is nothing under the current system preventing a state from doing that Personally I have always been in favor of Every congressional District being awarded by the popular vote of that district, which would leave 2 "At Large" votes per state to be given out based on the popular vote of the state.

noahtallen 6y ago
How does the concept of the electoral college protect the republic any more than a popular vote? It seems to be a layer of indirection rather than anything useful. If it was useful for preventing poor candidates, I feel it’s not working that well. The effect it has is to amplify the voice of sparsely populated states. Do we actually think that these states are more qualified to decide what we have to dinner (or more qualified to protect the republic?) I’m also unsure how breaking down the popular vote by district helps to protect the republic further. Why not just use the popular vote (or even better, RCV or approval voting) instead of adding these layers of indirection?
- syshum 6y ago
  It depends on how you view the nation. I view each state as a sovereign entity that internally pick who (as a state) they desire to lead the federal government. Then as 1 voice they tell the other states who that person is. At a basic level this would mean each state only got 1 vote no matter how many people where in that state. As a compromise from that, the system of proportional representation was created. Originally this was designed at a time where the Senate was not elected by popular vote but instead the Senate was appointed by the legislatures of each state not by popular vote. Something I also would support returning to The House of Representatives was to be the only pure democratic body in the US Government. The electoral college part of State Sovereignty respecting that we are a Union of states. the 17th amendment reduced State Sovereignty considerably and IMO has lead to some very large negative effects including the politicization of court system but that is a whole other topic Since at least the 1920's there has been a strong push attempting to reduce the power of the State government and centralize the power of the Federal Government. In short a strong push to transform the United States of America away from a republic of states, to a single universal government. To those wanting to transform the nation the preferred model is Direct Democracy one with no Natural or inherent rights, and no Constitution. To those people if the majority desires it, that should be the law of the land.... That is not a constitutional republic form of government. The attack on the Electoral College is a direct attack on the constitutional republic As to RCV or other voting methods besides First past the post. That has nothing to Electoral College, you can implement RCV (which I would support as well) with out eliminating the Electoral College
throwawaygh 6y ago
The founders set up the electoral college because a powerful faction of them didn't want the full collage of skin colors to be enfranchised, or even freed from slavery, in their new republic. Any other story is anti-historical hogwash. History is what it is.