EA Forums - Banner

Best wishes today for our American Tappers

Replies

  • If memory serves me this situation where the President Elect didn't win both popular vote and electoral votes has only happened 4 times. Currently, in 2000 between Gore and G.W Bush ..prior to that back in the 1800's. It's not common which is why I was interested in watching to see how it ends up.
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • 2psev0k.jpg.
    Here's the map of the electoral college with the number of votes each state has.
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • This sums things up much better than I ever could:
    Answers HQ Hero HELP THREADS
  • I don't really understand the defence that the electoral college system means less populous states get equal representation, because surely they shouldn't. If there are less people, the state should get less influence, because the current system literally means that some people are made 'more important' than others.

    Perhaps the electoral college will one day fade away. Perhaps, to avoid less populous states being 'ignored' under a more democratic system because candidates wouldn't 'need their votes,' when they become candidates they could be required to release plans and promises for each and every state, and be held to them if they win. Would that be a good idea I wonder?
  • @Muhsterino Thank you for that :) If you get time please post that in that 'other' thread on here.
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • IckabodSchrek
    5912 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    @parkern1 It is because we are a "United" States. Its need was recognized and established and has been successful dating back to the formation of our country and its constitution.
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • I understand the Founders looked at European governments and wanted to avoid the problems there. Why is it still needed? What is the point? What good does it do now? From where I'm standing, all it is doing is blocking the democratic process, rather than helping it as it is apparently supposed to do.

    The Founding Fathers weren't infallible and there's plenty to criticise them for. Just saying that they decided that surely isn't a reason in and of itself to keep it.

    What success does it have that couldn't have been achieved without it? Sure, it hadn't got in the way for most of America's history, but can you say, for sure, that there couldn't have been success without it?

    How is it democratic when more people voted for one candidate and it lets the other candidate become President? I still haven't been able to have it explained why some people's votes should be more important than others. Its surely an archaic system and one that is no longer fit for purpose.
  • @Parkin76 It sounds as if you are passionate about this. I would suggest looking up the addresses on line of your state's Representatives and Senators and write letters voicing your concerns, since they are usually the first steps toward changing laws in our country, by introducing a bill through the House, then off to the Senate.
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • parkern1 wrote: »
    I understand the Founders looked at European governments and wanted to avoid the problems there. Why is it still needed? What is the point? What good does it do now? From where I'm standing, all it is doing is blocking the democratic process, rather than helping it as it is apparently supposed to do.

    The Founding Fathers weren't infallible and there's plenty to criticise them for. Just saying that they decided that surely isn't a reason in and of itself to keep it.

    What success does it have that couldn't have been achieved without it? Sure, it hadn't got in the way for most of America's history, but can you say, for sure, that there couldn't have been success without it?

    How is it democratic when more people voted for one candidate and it lets the other candidate become President? I still haven't been able to have it explained why some people's votes should be more important than others. Its surely an archaic system and one that is no longer fit for purpose.

    THIS was my question, rather than 'what is the electoral college?' The constant +2 electors for each state skews the number of votes per state in favour of the less populated states, giving their vote more weight than those in NY for example. It just doesn't make sense democratically.

    @IckabodSchrek I would disagree that is has been 'successful' given that it has elected the less popular candidate a total of five times.
  • Exactly. I know what the college is, and couldn't echo this more, barrymcerlea.
  • ericborovay
    104 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    L.A., New York, Chicago and other large cities have no idea what problems and concerns a farmer in Nebraska or Montana has. So they shouldn't always decide the vote. Only 5 out of 56 elections have had the popular vote winner lose the electoral count.
    Besides the U.S. was founded on the principles of a Republic, not a majority rules Democracy.
  • So because they are in a minority, a Nebraskan farmer's vote should be worth 2 Los Angeles citizens? Just because something is traditional and based on convention does not automatically qualify it as acceptable.
  • ericborovay
    104 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    The farmers vote doesn't mean more. Los Angeles is in California and Hillary has all of California's electoral votes. Besides she may end up with the popular vote, but the end results won't be her getting over 120 million votes. And that would be the only senario where 1 Nebraska vote equals 2 Los Angeles votes.
  • My point was the population to electoral college votes in the two states. Nebraska has a population of less than 1.9 million, and 5 votes (1 vote for every 375k people). California has a population of 38.8 million, and 55 votes, 1 vote for every 700k people. Surely, if the system was truly representative and fair then California should have 21 times as many votes as Nebraska?

    When adjusted to ignore the 2 votes given to each state, the votes are much more proportional to the population.
  • California's total registered voters is actually about 18 million. And obviously that doesn't mean all 18 million voted. They'll release the final numbers soon, but voter turnout has been dropping in California for the past few elections.
  • The electoral system was set up to explicitly prevent one party or group from becoming entrenched in the larger cities or bigger states and constantly winning the election. Because our founders knew that eventually the other smaller states would get tired of having no say and it would end badly. As James Madison said about majority rules democracy "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
  • I can think of several solutions that don't involve a fundamentally undemocratic process.
  • Ignoring that the U.S. is a Republic, and not a Democracy, how could things be changed that wouldn't result in another civil war? Because if 30 states spent decades being out voted by the large, highly populated cities, that's exactly what would happen again.
  • Republics are supposed to be democratic systems though, you couldn't exactly have a totalitarian republic.

    There are surely ways to give less populous states a voice. For example, my idea above about promises for each state. Perhaps the President could be impeached if they don't fulfil, say, promises made for 3 sparse states. Maybe, as another idea, instead there could be a branch of government specifically dedicated to the less populous states that the candidates have to release a strategy for. There are surely ways to stop less populous states getting marginalised without resorting to a fundamentally undemocratic process.
  • Also, why would there necessarily be civil war? That's not how the last American Civil War happened. The flip side of course is that if candidates keep getting into office that got less votes, that could cause severe tension. It may have only happened 5 times in 200 plus years, but after all, it has happened twice in the past two decades that the person with the popular vote did not become President. Its just as likely to cause civil war if we get the same sort of numbers for the next two decades, surely.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.