What do u think will happen to the republican party if they lose again in 2024?

It's not CA or NY, or ANY states. A popular vote would simply represent the people instead of states.

Politicians today have the tools to reach the masses without leaving their homes, so the old argument that distant citizens would lack sufficient information to make informed choices is outdated. We don't need to rely on a special class to make decisions on our behalf. We each now have plenty of information to make our own decisions.

A popular vote instead of the EC solves the problem of a completely skewed political process.

 

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and avoid partisan attacks. Focus on addressing the arguments. If you can't do that, don't bother responding.

The Founders were incredibly progressive and had great foresight, but they did make mistakes. Highlighting what doesn't work today isn't an attack on their intelligence or understanding of governance. It's simply acknowledging that some things no longer make sense or were wrong from the start. For example, the idea that black people were three-fifths of a person was blatantly wrong.

On your "complete opposite extreme" point: a popular vote isn't an extreme idea nor a complete opposite; it's a different system that most democratic countries use today. It's the norm. It doesn't rely on a special class (the Electoral College) to represent the masses. They are not opposites; they are mostly the same with some significant differences. A complete opposite of an EC would be a system with no representatives at all or no voting at all.

My previous point about how the Electoral College system skews the political process still stands without any counterargument from you.

 

Absolutely. But are we really post-feudal

 

Yeah crying and rioting the capital are just the same

 

I'll take a majority people deciding elections, regardless of where they live, like we do for every other office.

 

I actually agree with splitting EC votes. That's better than a winner take all system that we have now.

 

Methinks that the founding fathers built a country with major concessions to the slave holders in the South, as opposed to the made up history you are spewing.

 

Splitting the EC votes can be gamed by gerrymandering the Congressional districts.

 

History is complicated. Did you know much of the south belong to the Spanish Territories back when the 'founding fathers' were alive and didn't become part of the US until later? They must have had quite some foresight to envision punishing all those black people for being black.

 

It's also an unnecessary barrier. Why add another layer? There are a few reasons for doing so:

Allowing the state to manipulate it through gerrymandering, as you mentioned. Allowing the state to allocate the "split," essentially "gaming" it for partisan advantage. It also risks Congress stepping in to make a decision in case of a tie. Such problems don't arise with a simple popular vote. Additionally, it doesn't solve the skewed political process problem, as some states might be more valuable to focus on than others.

The simple, straightforward solution is a popular vote, as used in most of our elections and like most other democratic nations. While the Electoral College split is an improvement, it still introduces unnecessary complications and opens the door to potential partisan manipulation (and given our history, it will be manipulated).

 

Popular vote is the opposite in the context of this conversation...unless you are suggesting some here want no voting at all.
Im not sure what the black people counting 3/5ths have to do with anything here. If we are going to bring up all the whataboutisms, we would be here all day. Nobody is saying they had the vision for all things to come. It was the politics of the day.

I did state a counterargument .... I do not want a system where the top populace decides for everyone else. And that is exactly why the EC was setup. You fail to compromise and accept that splitting EC's is the most pragmatic thing.

There is a reason why the EC debate only comes up with the popular vote wins. The adults in the room understand the purpose and have zero interest in changing it. There is no real movement to do away with it. It is part of the constitution and the only people who ever have a problem with it are the losers. Its a typical 'change the rules until I win' mentality.

And it really doesn't matter. Even with a popular vote, you would eventually b**** and moan. The fact remains the wealthy and powerful decide much of the outcome and all a popular vote would do is change the game theory. The same shitty people would still be in office. We would still have Hillary/Trump/Biden as our candidates. Popular vote doesn't fix this.

 

Yet there is.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

 

Which of the 13 colonies were in Spanish Territory when the founding fathers negotiated the electoral college?

 

The Electoral College (EC) is essentially a state-level popular vote, while a non-EC system represents a people-level popular vote. They aren't opposites; one is direct, and the other involves a special group.

You suggested I'm "basically saying the creators of this country were too simple-minded and didn't understand governance" because of my stance that the EC is outdated and flawed, implying that the creators of this country are beyond criticism and can't be wrong. The 3/5 example is not about whataboutism but provides supporting facts directly refuting that implication.

You simply proposed splitting the EC, which I don't see as a counter-argument. While it's an improvement, it doesn't solve the problems. Refer to my other post about it.

Actually, most people view the EC as outdated, and there has been an ongoing campaign to change it for many years.. But like many things here in the US, good ideas agreed upon by many don't necessarily lead to change. Nearly everyone agrees on universal background checks, but it cannot pass Congress. The reason for this isn't because the adults in the room understand the problem, but because the system isn't responsive to the populace. The EC system contributes to that problem.

I'm going to again disregard your partisan "mentality" attack.

"Even with a popular vote, you would eventually b**** and moan" is again your inability to control yourself and project your own ideas onto me. I'm going to disregard it.

Your concern about the wealthy and powerful deciding much of the outcome is another reason to ditch the EC for a popular vote. It is much harder to manipulate the whole populace than the few states' populace or the politicians from a few states.

 

So what, I'm not totally against the electoral college, but this isn't 1850. It isn't city vs country

You think Texans live on farms? 80% of Americans live in urban areas. People's politics are dictated by where they live certainly but the country and world are getting smaller, we are all affected by the same things

 

In this aspect, there is no difference between 1850's and now. The current voting structure gives power to the states, not the people. Its irrelevant with peoples opinions if they can't acknowledge this aspect.

If we give the voting power to the people, there is no point in having states. This is a fundamental constitutional change and nobody really wants it except the losers.

 

The Founding Fathers also said the legislature should expand in the same proportion as the population in said area. The founding fathers wanted the Electoral College to be representative of general population Yet Congress stopped doing that and placed a cap on the size of the House. So whereas the Founding Fathers may have done this correctly Congress ****ed it up as usual. The EC needs to be abolished OR the House should expand proportionately.

 

Democrats weren't the dipshit morons who cried election fraud while trying to hang the vice president bcz our cult leader told us too. That was you MAGAT boomers. Own it

 

I am not a government buff like many here, but doesnt this already happen? Which is why switching to a plurality is only a marginal difference from forcing states to split the votes?

 

Lets be reasonable and realistic, if thats possible.

The impact and fairness between winner-takes-all vs force split is massive. Its also a process that is not erogenous and all it takes is for the states and parties to agree to it.

The difference between a split EC vs plurality is marginal. However this requires a constitutional change, and all of us realistic folks know this isn't going to happen. So its almost as if anyone who pushes the plurality solution is either not very serious or simply too idealistic and stuck in their own mindset (partisan) to ever make meaningful change.