Will there be mass protests / violence post-election day?

Apologies if I've missed something, this thread is too long to read in its entirety.

I'm assuming you're saying that advocating a popular vote would eliminate the voices of those in small (population) states?
This doesn't make sense. 1 person, 1 vote. Voters retain their voices, regardless of location.

The argument seems to be that the votes of those in population dense areas must be devalued and the votes of those in less populated states must be overvalued in order to have "fair" representation. This is irrational.

Is conservatism so limited in its appeal that it must be permitted special protections in elections? Is it impossible for conservatism to make an appeal to city dwellers? Of course not. Why shouldn't any political party or candidate be forced to compete in the market of ideas and win based on the number of people convinced?

If the argument is that the way campaigns are run would suffer, that would be an argument I'm interested in hearing.

 

If you go to nothing but a popular vote, the people in the top 15-20 cities will determine EVERY election. That's the ONLY voters that you'd really care about. States with small populations would be entirely irrelevant....as it stands now, they are barely relevant. In order to allow small states to continue to have a voice in presidential elections, we have the electoral college system. It's the ONLY reason why candidates of either party have to even listen to what people in small states care about.

It's an integral part of the American style of government, you might as well be asking why we have to have a Supreme Court, or why we have to have elections at all.

 

It's funny, I seem to have to explain the electoral college to people every 4 years, it's really not that hard to understand and the reasons for it are incredibly solid. It's just a matter of people understanding that states want to have a voice and that the interests and concerns of people in some parts of the country are different than those in other parts of the country.

 

I disagree.

Again, popular vote doesn't remove the voice of rural voters. 1 person - 1 vote doesn't subtract the value of anyone's vote. Roughly half our population is in cities, half in rural. Popular vote does not devalue anyone's vote. The EC does.

Now if you're saying the campaign style would change and candidates would only focus on population centers, that's an argument I can understand. But that is something that is mutable and can change from generation to generation, especially depending on technology.

This is the really weird part, for me. It's as if the countryside is an alternate dimension where ideas don't travel the same or humans become genetically modified and can't receive ideas the same, and must be given electoral preference.

Americans are Americans. There are liberals in the countryside and conservatives in the cities. Ideas are ideas. Go out there and compete, and don't rely on the EC as a crutch to give special preference to a population based on their location. My argument is a conservative one.

And I'm aware of the dangers of direct democracy. The way the Swiss have things set up is a little scary. There are tons of democracies and representative republics out there that use layers of representation to buffer the mob from directly pulling the levers. Almost none of them would deny the popular vote winner in a national contest.

 

I guess the only thing I can say is that those who founded the country disagree with you. I do understand what you are saying and I appreciate that you've actually put thought into this, but the states would have never gotten united in the first place without a system to protect the rights of the less populous states. They believed that this system would do so and it has worked for all but 4 years (incidentally the last time Democrats were this angry at Republicans) in the last 228 years.

I simply see no reason to scrap that system simply because people are upset that the candidate they wanted to win couldn't manage to garner enough support where it mattered.

 

That's why you can't see it: because the reason is not that people are upset. The reason is that "all men are created equal," and their votes should have equal value.

 

I'm not sure what you think the relevance of this is. You do know that I never supported him and didn't vote for him right? In fact, I think he's an idiot....the fact that you share the same views on the subject should concern you.

 

Sorry, I edited my post while you were writing. I posted that Trump thing elsewhere.

If you didn't vote for Trump, then your vote counts for zero if you live in Texas. Republicans in DC and Democrats in Wyoming don't even need to vote for president in this system. It makes no difference.

 

I'm sure Republican voters in Michigan thought that too.....the last time they went red was 1988. The point is that the electoral college makes states matter.

 

And you care about this because . . .

 

Fully agree. We can debate till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the EC is here to stay.

I strongly disagree with the winner takes all method though. But that is left up to the states.

People need to take the congressional elections much more serious than the presidential.

 

The same reason the founders and the states that agreed to join the union in the first place care about it. It allows local interests to be shown in a presidential election. You can't simply ignore areas of the country without it potentially backfiring. Again, states like Michigan and Pennsylvania went red for the first time since the last time California did. No party has a permanent monopoly in any state meaning the local interests of people in those states are important. A raw vote total election eliminates this.

 

You gotta get over this thing about the founders.
1. The founders did not say that the electoral college reps must reflect their state's popular vote. So they did not mandate the "local interest" thing you keep talking about.
2. The founders did not intend for black people and women to vote. Sometimes we have to improve on the founders. That's what the amendments are about.
3. "Local interests" of blue states are not represented in this presidential election, and blue won the popular vote! Don't you care about the "local interests" of the majority of people?
4. Senators and everyone else are elected by popular vote, and that works just fine. I doubt you want electoral colleges for senate races too. . . .

 

What you don't understand is that even if the electors were picked by representatives of the state, it would still equate to the "local interest" thing I'm talking about.

Saying that "you gotta get over" fundamental things that the country is founded on is kind of ridiculous. Why not "get over" the freedom of speech or freedom of religion while we're at it? Why not "get over" allowing voting in the first place? Those questions have similar answers to the "Why not get over the electoral college system? " question.

 

Again, the ONLY time this system was a problem in American history was when Democrats were upset that the Republicans took away their slaves. Now Democrats are upset about this system again.....

 

Take your foot out of your mouth: freedom of speech is guaranteed in one of those amendments I mentioned. In other words, the founders did not give us that. Your defense of the freedom of speech is a defense of the need to amend the founders' original document.

I think I'm just going to consider my point proven here.

 

Well, to be technical about it all, James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights - and he is a Founding Father.

 

Ah yes, the difference between the original constitution being ratified in 1788 and the first amendment being adopted in 1791 is huge. Probably all of the founders were dead by then. Solid point you just made, glad you made it.

 

The point is, the founders' original intentions have NEEDED to be amended over time. The 12th Amendment already revised the Electoral College process once. The 15th Amendment gave people of every race the right to vote. The 17th Amendment established how to vote for senators. And the 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote. That was in 1920. See how amendments to the founders' document have been REQUIRED through time in order to create a more just voting system?

 

Yeah....revised the system, not abolished it, not destroyed the system. What you are advocating for is the destruction of the system. You do realize that right?