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

This is a lazy argument. God did not come down from on high and declare that for all eternity the EC is the one and only fair and just way to count votes for a national election. It's simply what the small states negotiated at the time.

Since it didn't get addressed before, I'll repeat myself:

You've argued that popular vote would strip small states of their voice; that is factually untrue. Each resident of each state would get a vote. Your other arguments are the lazy "it's always been that way" or fallacious "it's what the founders did."

Can I hear an argument about why it is fair and just that people in population centers must have their votes devalued, without resorting to the fallacies above?

 

Well you may believe that it is factually untrue, but the states didn't believe that when they joined the union. If they thought that their interests would still be represented in presidential elections without an electoral college, there never would have been one to begin with.

When you go by a raw vote total those who live in the Houston metro area would have more sway over the election than the bottom 6 states combined and almost exactly as much as the bottom 7 states combined. One city should not have more sway than multiple states. That's why we have the electoral college.

Hell the New York metro area would have more sway than the bottom 15 states.

You may reject the idea that the interests of those in smaller states are better protected with the electoral college, but that's what those who created the country believed, that's what states believed when they joined the union, and that's the way things have been done without a problem for over 200 years. Again, IMO if you want to throw that all away, you have to give me one hell of a good reason to do so and having a candidate that you support failing to win while picking up a larger raw vote total simply isn't a valid reason.

The Titans have a better point differential than the Texans, but the Titans are in 3rd place and the Texans are in first place. Is that also unfair? The Titans have outscored their opponents by more, thus they should be in first place right? Wrong. They didn't win enough games to be in first place, thus they are not in first place.

 

The electoral college is a tortured mess because of how different states count their vote and how the actual delegates are selected.

Like the senate selection process, they've evolved and changed beyond what the holy founders intended.

 

1. There have been problems. Electoral College-->Bush Jr.-->Iraq 2-->trillions in debt-->massive war crimes based on a mistake (WMD's)-->hundreds of thousands killed-->ISIS
2. What is so special about the smaller states if a city is bigger? You say, "Well Houston will get more influence than a whole state!" OK, well Houston is bigger than a whole state! What's the issue here? You think the smaller state deserves more influence because . . . it's smaller? Why?
3. The founders believed slaves and women (who implicitly were below slaves) shouldn't vote. Why are you so obsessed with the founders? Women didn't get to vote until 1920. . . . The founders were not Allah. The Constitution is not an eternal document.

 

If Hillary won the EC but lost the popular vote, you would be perfectly fine with this. "Thats how the game is played". Theres a word for that; Hypocrisy.

The Democrats and Republicans are fine with the EC. Its part of the Constitution. Take a government class and learn what it takes to get a Constitutional Amendment. Its not going anywhere. Get over it.

Oh and having the states split the EC is a bad idea. Independents will have a much easier job of getting a couple EC's. With the system split down the middle, this would prevent a 270 goal. Do you want the House to vote for our president?

 

That's fine, you are effectively saying that you don't think states should have rights....or even be important things.This system of government disagrees with you. Simple as that. That said, there's no way to get past this fundamental disagreement in order to have further discussion about it.

Also, I wanted to point this out, you led with something that undercuts your credibility on this issue. You've shown that your problem with the system is that you didn't get the result you wanted now and in the past. It's not really some philosophical thing, you just see that you didn't get the result you wanted, and with this change, you would. I argue that the system of government in America is set up to be slow moving and to be incredibly difficult to have this type of radical change based on a whim or on a temporary grievance due to one party not getting their way. Hopefully it stays that way.

 

The states have rights and the states are important. That would continue even without the current Electoral College system.

You're claiming I'm not objective. You're right, I'm not! Minority President Bush committed massive war crimes, ran up trillions in debt, killed hundreds of thousands of people based on a lie, created the conditions for ISIS, and I'm not up for a repeat. Clinton got millions more votes. Everyone with common sense can see how she might reasonably be considered the winner. In fact, some people are even confused when you explain why she is not the winner.

You're not objective either. So what's your point?

 

It wouldn't continue if you undercut the system by going to a system that decides things based on a raw popular vote. I just explained to you that there would be cities that would have more political pull than 15 states combined. You can't say you want to protect states rights while also saying that you want to give them less importance than cities.

I am objective. I didn't want either candidate to win honestly. George W Bush was the legitimate winner of the 2000 election and Donald Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election. Those are things you are just going to have to deal with. Clearly 16 years hasn't been enough for you to cope with the first election that didn't go your way, hopefully it won't take that long for you to cope with this election.....but burning down the system that worked as it was intended to isn't the solution. It's just a knee jerk emotional response that would be incredibly short sighted.....a common flaw of leftist policy. Just look at how the short sighted move by Harry Reid, where he removed filibusters of presidential nominations, is already set to bite them in the ass.

These things need to be well though out before action, and IMO the anti-electoral college crowd hasn't thought about all of the unintended consequences such an action would lead to.

 

You're claiming I'm not objective. You're right, I'm not! Minority President Bush committed massive war crimes, ran up trillions in debt, killed hundreds of thousands of people based on a lie, created the conditions for ISIS, and I'm not up for a repeat. Clinton got millions more votes. Everyone with common sense can see how she might reasonably be considered the winner. In fact, some people are even confused when you explain why she is not the winner.

You're not objective either. So what's your point?[/QUOTE]

Did it ever occur to your that the name of our country "The United STATES of America" is because each state is its own entity and entered the union based upon the promise of the Constitution? If you want it changed, do it the old fashioned way....amend it using the process our founders set up. (Good luck with that by the way).

In the meantime, the left lost fair and square. If you feel the best use of your time is to follow through on this pointless exercise, by all means do so. I'm sure 2018 will be just as kind to the Dems as 2016 was.

 

I dont know anyone who is confused why she isn't the winner. I think everyone is confused why the DNC propped her up thought.

I would like to know what your definition of common sense is. Clearly its not very common with you.

You're officially reaching the Sweet Lou level of reasoning.

 

On topic of post-election violence, there is definitely a social violence continuing.

Close friend of a close friend received an anonymous anti-Semitic postcard in the mail. Yes, I have a photo of it, but don't want to blur out the names right now. It goes just like this:

"Hey _________[name redacted]
You got your Kike ass kicked.
**** you, Hymie.
We're going to drain the swamp
at ___________[place of work redacted]
Juden Raus!"

What a coward. You can say, "oh sure, there are assholes." Well, no, I've never seen anything that hateful and racist randomly mailed to someone in my lifetime. Maybe on a badly parked car or something, but even then, minus the reference to Kristallnacht. Folks, very sadly, this is real. We can just hope it's temporary. Trump needs to hold up a postcard like that and say clearly not just "stop it" but "you people are scum and our election victory wants nothing to do with you. Go back in your hole and stay there while decent people of all types work together."

 

Yeah, exactly, folks. What do you say to a hateful act like that postcard? I can share the recipient's identity. Professor Sandor Levinson is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas. He's not a radical, but he had been interviewed on TV, as I understand it, about the history of the electoral college.

Well, here's what you say as an American: hell to the naw to having a white nationalist political movement. That would end in tears, for all -- that is a guarantee from history, if you care.

 

Juden Raus, Juden Raus. . . . Hey! There's a board game by that name. . . . How to play:

1. Build a wall.
2. Start a Jew registry. Measure their noses and check their eye color to prove they are Jews.
3. Kick the Jews outside of the wall.
4. If you rape or kill a Jew, it's minus 5 because its harder to move a wounded Jew outside the wall.
5. If you send a postcard to a Jew, that's a penalty for Beta Behavior. An urban person will move in next door to you until you have a accumulated enough Purity Points to buy a cross and kerosene.
6. Draining the Jew Swamp at the University is double bonus points, because first you have to get a Ph.D. and convince someone to hire you to replace the Jew. Getting a Ph.D. entails masquerading as a lib, which accumulates Courage Clusters, which you can use to make T-shirts that say how great your country is because you were born there.
7. The first person to remove all fertile and prepubescent Jews from his Ghetto Sector wins a black and white photo of a naked Jewess, which you can use to masturbate in your closet as often as your heart desires.

Build that wall!
Catch them all!
Not in my house!
Juden Raus!

 

Again, your argument is simply: "That's the way it has always been, therefore it's good." This argument is a fallacy.

First of all, you're treating popular vote like some sort of EC plus system, where an entire metro area gets all it's votes blue. Of course that's not true. Houston metro area has TONS of republican voters, and the 7 smallest states have their share of dem voters.

Secondly, it's not one city having more sway than multiple states: it's voters having sway due to HOW they voted, instead of WHERE they voted. Location is irrelevant. Americans are Americans. Votes are votes.

Here are the two fallacies you keep repeating:
"It's in the original document, therefore it's fair." This is objectively false. We know that there were unfair and immoral things in the original document that were corrected later by amendments.
"Devaluing votes by location is fair." This is objectively false. And if I'm wrong, please prove me wrong by providing evidence of the wrongs suffered by rural voters which require special protections. And please do keep in mind, that a ridiculously complex governmental system created to protect a class of citizens is exactly the kind of crap that sends small government conservatives into a hissy. My argument is a conservative one.

Low population states will be ignored? They have been ignored? They are oppressed? How so? Prove it.

Here are two arguments for your consideration:
- a system of voting should strive to be fair regardless of whom negotiated what in the 1770s.
- a system of voting that gives equal voice to every individual American is more fair than a system that devalues the voices of those living in cities, and overvalues those living in rural areas.

Am I wrong? Prove it.

And someone please explain to me how the American countryside is this extradimensional landscape where political ideas travel differently than in cities? Country folk are immune to liberalism? Cities are immune to conservatism? Why shouldn't political parties and ideologies compete on their merits alone, without the benefit or disadvantage of a complex, antiquated system designed to prefer one class over the other?

 

No, my argument is that it has always been that way and it has been good, it is still that way and it is still good, thus it is good. It still protects the voice of the less populous states against that of the more densely populated states.

I cut out the rest of your nonsense, but I'll respond to it anyway. In this election, you had one candidate win the majority of the vote in 30 states meaning that 30 states wanted one candidate to be president. You had 20 states that wanted someone different. If you took the raw popular vote in 49 states, one candidate wins and that's the same candidate that won 30 states. You add the one extra state and the candidate that won 20 states wins the popular vote.

It's exactly this kind of thing that the electoral college was intended to prevent.

In your mind, the candidate that won 20 states should be president, ignoring the fact that 30 states were against that candidate....don't you see a flaw here?

I mean, even if YOU don't, it won't change the fact that the more fair system still allows the small states to have a voice in national elections and one candidate can't just run up the score in one state with a huge population.

Honestly there's no point in debating this further, the system is fair and it's here to stay. [/QUOTE]

 

Man, I'm taking the time to make arguments based on reason, and you're just ignoring it. I'm asking you to provide evidence to back up your claims, and you just ignore it. Come on. You refuse to debate with good arguments while accusing me of bias.

No, it is not good. In two elections in 16 years the will of the majority was overturned for no good reason.

Why do less densely populated states need their voices defended? Present your case. Here's a hint: just saying "well, because" isn't good enough. Back up your claims. Try to use reason, logic, a moral premise, anything. Please.

Your entire premise is that winning states is better than winning the popular vote. SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE OR REASONING. Here, I'll help you out since you've been too lazy to make a good argument yet:
- Determining victory through popular vote will make candidates and parties focus their campaigns in population centers, becaues it's easier to reach more people in less time.
- Here are x, y, and z historical examples of rural folks being ignored in the past, which justifies the protection of the EC.
- We need the EC to step in as a buffer to prevent the mob from electing a fascist idiot. (This argument is conspicously missing, despite it being extremely relevant now.)

Of course I don't see a flaw! This reasoning is preposterous. In my mind the candidate who actually earned more votes should win, be it Trump or whoever. This location based reasoning is arbitrary; arbitrary borders, EC vote totals determined by incomplete or innacuate census data, states with miminum EC vote totals that don't even match innacurate census data because of their size; THIS is the system you treat as a universally moral good handed down by God himself, no questioning, no reasoning, no historical data to support you? And you're the one who accuses me of bias?

It seems that in your mind everybody in every small state is all dressed up in red and in every state they're all in blue, and every single person votes for a particular team based on their location and this is not close to true. Winning a state is meaningless compared to tallying every single voice.

In a popular vote everyone's voice is heard in every state. If you're going to devalue American's votes based on their location you have to give damn good reason why. I've politely asked you again and again to state your case and you haven't.

 

The raw popular vote is and has always been irrelevant, why would that be any different now? The will of the majority of states was done, the will of California was not.

You are asking a fundamental question that the country was built on. You might as well be asking why do people need to be allowed to vote? States are separate entities united under one banner, the people of those states have a right to have their voice heard. Perhaps in your mind it's unfair that the candidate that carried the vote of 30 of 50 states becomes president, but if that be the case, I suggest you find somewhere else to live because that's part of the basis for the union of states to begin with. People from different states have different interests and different agendas, each deserve to have their voice heard. You'd take that away from them so that one state could run up the score for a candidate and overrule all of the other states. It was a plan that was rejected initially and has been rejected time and time again over the years. In fact, the only reason you bring it up now is because you are upset your candidate lost.

I maintain that it's self-evident. If you don't understand, that's fine.

And that's why we're wasting our time discussing this. If you can't see the flaw in that, then you can't be helped. You are clearly too blinded by despair over the loss of your candidate to see reason. Thinking that one state should overrule all others is irrational. It's like having a room full of people, you take a vote and 30 of the 50 vote one way but you argue that the biggest kid was part of the 20 so we should do things that way. You clearly have fundamental disagreements with what this country was founded on so I encourage you to shop around and find a country more in tune with your values.

Good luck.

 

Dude, all you're doing is saying "That's the way it is, OK?!?!?!" and trying to act cool about it. "That's the way it is" is not impressive to anyone but yourself. It's like you feel tough defending that there are exactly 50 states.

 

At this point, yeah. Anyone who doesn't get it simply isn't going to, and I'm fine with that. Again, he might as well be asking why people should be allowed to vote. If he can't figure that out on his own, no one is going to help him do so. I explained the reasons given for picking this system many many times to him and he still didn't get it. I think it comes down to a difference of fundamental values, which is why I suggested he shop around and find a country more in line with his values. I'd hate for him to live the rest of his life unhappy about a completely fair system that he can't understand.

 

Which is what exactly would happen in a popular vote. The gay college students in Mississippi would have their voices heard, the investment bankers in Manhattan, and the evangelists in California. They all get their voices heard, all of their voices are counted. It is the EC system in which some voices are amplified and others devalued. In your book, having the voices of city folks' devalued is just and fair.

You've failed to present your case for why rural voters need their voices defended. Again. To repeat myself for the third or fourth time: because small states negotiated the EC to help themselves while framing the Constitution, doesn't mean it's right or a good idea (see the 3/5ths rule.) You need a better argument than "that's how it was written." It's a fallacy. It's not good enough.

Failing to even offer support for why smaller states need their voices amplified and larger states devalued, your premise falls apart.

Exactly. The popular vote would better capture the preference of each individual.

This condescension is hardly called for when I've had to beg you to use a quality argument based on reason.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on his throne of gold. You're making my argument for me.
It's like having a room full of people, 63 vote one way, 61 another, but you argue that the minority should win because of an ancient system of counting that assigns "votes" based on inaccurate census totals taken on the location of people standing within arbitrary borders. When someone proffers the logical conclusion that the party who got more votes should win, you complain that the voices of those standing further apart from each other are being "overruled." When pressed on justifying this irrational argument, you respond "that's how the rules were written!" even when there are other rules that were changed (3/5ths, female vote) that you are fine with. This is irrational.

While we're at it, could you provide an example of "one state overruling all others?"

States are not people. People are people. States are collections of individuals. Counting each individual vote does not deny the voices of the voters within any state. Not using an artificial system of amplifying some voices over others does not equal denying their voice.

Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the 3/5ths rule? With women denied a vote? This country was founded on those principles! U DON LIKE IT U CAN GIT OUT!