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

No one is denying the fact that the Constitution would need to be amended given time; our difference in this part of the discourse is how we go about defining what constitutes a need.

 

Call me a rebel.

Actually, as I saw a (Republican) dude propose on CNN: there is a way to make the Electoral College reflect the popular vote. It requires a pact between states. Some states have already entered the pact. The pact says that the states' electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote. Pretty simple! We can keep the Electoral College that way, for old times' sake.

I appreciate what you say about acknowledging the states. But, in this election, the popular vote is not even close.

I went along last time with Bush-Gore in 2000. The result was that the "minority" president started a war against Iraq based on falsehoods (WMD's), the U.S. committed massive war crimes against a sovereign nation, we are still in that quagmire today, and ISIS supposedly came out of that. So, the results of the majority acquiescing to the minority last time were totally awful. I sacrificed my TX vote for the Electoral College in 2000, and all I got were these lousy war crimes.

 

Which would defeat the purpose and destroy the entire system......all because you are upset that a candidate you supported failed to gain enough support to win.

 

You seriously cannot fathom the idea that whoever gets the most votes should win? You just can't see any justification for it except sour grapes, even though we elect senators and everyone else that way.

Well I can tell you, yes I do feel pretty sour about Bush-Gore 2000, when this also happened, and the U.S. committed massive war crimes based on a lie (WMD's), ran up trillions of dollars of debt for the American taxpayer, sacrificed thousands of American soldiers for a lie, gave birth to ISIS for a lie, and we are still spending blood and money on that f-up to this day.

I'm not arguing this further. You do understand the concept of "the most votes wins." I will give you the last response if you like, or not, but I think I've established my argument and can stop here.

 

They shouldn't, and I've explained to you multiple times why this is. Hell I've explained it to a few people already. Either you can accept the reasons why we have that system, or you can reject it and just be upset about it. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Your desire to burn down the system in order to change the results of the 2000 and 2016 elections is entirely futile so yeah, you can just stop this here. You might as well be mad that there is a Senate and a House of Representatives instead of just one body of Congress. It's as ridiculous as it is pointless for you to get worked up about it.

 

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. A state like Wyoming should cast ignore their citizens vote and instead cast it towards New York or California.

States can cast their vote however they please. They dont need a pact. States should divide their EC's with the popular vote.

 

I'd like to say it's nice to actually debate something without all the name calling going on, it reminds me that this place can have value from time to time.

The above smacks of fundamentalism; that something is just and right because it is original. It's already well established that the constitution was not a perfect document and has been amended many times, especially regarding the voting system.

You say Hillary couldn't garner support from "where it mattered". But what "matters" is not objectively moral and just, it's what the smaller states were able to negotiate for themselves in the late 1700s.

I argue that a national vote for the Executive office is more just and fair when conducted by popular vote, rather than a system the devalues votes in population centers and overvalues votes in rural areas. I find your arguments against to be either a mere shrug of "well, that's the way it is" (lazy) or "because it's original it is therefore just" which is a fallacy.

If we know that the founding document has been amended many, many times in ways that we find to be more just than the original, then it's perfectly reasonable to debate how to make it more just. In this case, a moral argument holds more sway here than a fundamentalist one.

 

Not necessarily true at all. The constitution has been amended many many times, and made a better document for it. It can be done again, (through state action), there just has to be a strong enough movement to make it happen. Not likely, but not impossible.

Agreed! Man, I hope some states experiment with other methods.

Good point.

 

What on earth?? I don't understand at all. Could you define "destruction of the system?"
As if changing to a popular vote on one of our thousands of elections is more radical than allowing blacks to vote? Or women (half the f*cking population) to vote?

"Destruction of the system" should be reserved for, you know, destruction of the system. Like a dictator abolishes voting! THAT is destruction of the system. Voting in exactly the same manner but counting them in a different manner is not destruction of the system.

 

I hope states like California, New York, and Illinois go to a proportional system, while states like Texas and Utah stick with the winner take all system.

 

It's a destruction of the system because it defeats the purpose of the system. Changing who is allowed to vote is nowhere near as radical a change when compared to fundamentally changing how the winner is determined. It is the equivalent of changing the scoring in football from the team with the most points winning to a system where the team that gains the most yards wins.

Now, that said.....

I'd be fine with that. If states want to voluntarily dilute their impact in an election, that's still allowing the state to do what they want. It's still harmful to the system, but so long as it's not stripping small states of their voice against their will, I'm fine with it. Of course, funny enough, if only California, New York, and Illinois went to a proportional system, those on the left would have a fit and cry out about how terrible of a system it is because they'd likely never win another presidential election.

 

No again. With the Electoral College version of football, you'd count and see which team won the most quarters rather than looking at the total score. "But if you don't count the quarters, then the quarters don't even matter!"

 

That's not a valid comparison. The electoral college system is how it has always been, you are suggesting a change to fundamentally change the way the president is elected.

Again though, if California or New York wants to change the way they hand out electors, they are free to. In fact a few states do things slightly differently, and if they want to switch to handing out electoral votes in a proportional manner, that's their decision. Of course, how would you feel if they did that and as a result, no Democrat ever won the presidency again? You'd probably think that the switch was stupid right?

 

"How it has always been"? That is factually wrong. See the 12th Amendment.

About CA or NY changing how they hand out electors, I already suggested that possibility myself in this thread. OK with me.

 

I already explained this to you, the 12th amendment didn't establish the electoral college, it merely modified it. So yes, the electoral college system is "how it has always been".

Good to know that you'd support California and New York diluting their influence in presidential elections effectively handing every presidential election to the Republicans. Of course, I'd still be against it in principal, but if that's what those states wanted to to, I'd accept it.

 

The NFL needs to change how they rank teams in divisions. It's not fair that the Titans be in 3rd place, they have the best point differential in the division. Clearly that's not fair and we need to do away with "wins" or "losses" and just tally up the points scored and compare it to the points allowed in order to crown a division champ.

 

People in Wyoming have 80 times the voting power in the senate than someone in California does. Many things you can vote on other than president.

 

Unfortunately the senate was not designed to represent the people. The senate was suppose to represent the good of the state. The state used to appoint Senators instead of electing them. Now they are just tools for the lobbyists.

 

The senate was part of the Connecticut Compromise so small states were not ruled by large states. As larger states have pulled even further away from smaller states I don't see any problem with their voice increasing proportionally. As it stands one of the candidates didn't even both visiting wisconsin in the general election.