Electoral College is slowly dying, bitches

[archibaldcrane]

the EC is biased towards large swaths of land with few voters, i.e. the entirety of the midwest, which is why trump "thinks" he did so good... LOOK AT ALL THE RED, I WON SO MANY VOTERS, BUT OBVIOUSLY HILLARY HIRED MEXICANS (or some shit, with a lot worse grammar)

No, it's (a little) biased towards low population states, but while Reps have Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Idaho on lock, the Dems have D.C., Delaware, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.

That's 6 solid Republican states with 3 or 4 EVs to 5 Democratic states + 2 Dem leaners.

It's a wash.

If anything, the EC causes candidates to ignore large swaths of land with few voters, because the only "swing" states that meet that definition are New Mexico and Nevada, and even those don't have many electoral votes on offer.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

Yes, let's make sure our government only caters to dense urban population centers and never has to consider other populations. That can't backfire at all.

Translation: Who is going to pander to my pre-modern agrarian communities where women don't work?

[Niiro]

Black people's votes should count more than white people's.

We don't want a government that only caters to white people.

[Niiro]

Wait I'm white nvm.

[archibaldcrane]

dt; isc

[GoggleHead]

Translation: Who is going to pander to my pre-modern agrarian communities where women don't work?

Stop being a snarky cunt and explain why the election system should change so that only urban communities' concerns should be addressed. What is the benefit of that alteration and why is it desirable?

[Niiro]

A popular vote election would not be won by only appealing to urban communities.

[Niiro]

And if it could be we have this thing called a legislature that writes the laws and stuff, maybe you've heard of it.

[Niiro]

Wait why the fuck am I arguing with groggle.

[Melena]

Stop being a snarky cunt and explain why the election system should change so that only urban communities' concerns should be addressed. What is the benefit of that alteration and why is it desirable?

Stop being a snarky cunt and explain why an election should be currently decided by a small handful of states as is now?

[GoggleHead]

Stop being a snarky cunt and explain why an election should be currently decided by a small handful of states as is now?

1. I asked first so fuck you.
2. The status quo isn't without its own faults, I just happen to think the proposed solution fails to fix anything and amounts to childish crying because people didn't get the election results they desired.
3. I am swiftly arriving at the conclusion that this country needs to simply fracture because none of us agree on anything and we'd all be better off sequestering ourselves into territories with like-minded people working towards common goals rather than being a huge blob that wants to tear itself apart arguing over what it wants to do with itself while it slowly collapses.

[Boyiee]

Yeah but California is too expensive to live in and I don't want to have to move.

[arus2001]

City, county, and state level elections don't care about the EC. If they're not satisfying your needs, then parade on replacing them.

Policies like health care and education, however, are not just city or county level issues. The healthier and wiser our people are, the higher the probability proper decisions are made and innovations are had in their appropriate fields. There's simply a point where you need that national strongarm to get things done when some are otherwise set in their ways or find the current/old system more profitable. I know the GOP loves to thrive on the belief that everything is better if left to the private sector, but that's wholly dependent on the motivations behind those in charge. For people? Or for profit? Given the country's continued upward wealth distribution, I'd say the "for profit" side has been winning for a while now. And it's that much easier to control the population if they're stupid or vulnerable to illness and/or debt. That combination is very much likely how we got Trump paired with continued GOP obstruction during the Obama years.

It's a pretty sick long game, really.

[Melena]

1. I asked first so fuck you.
2. The status quo isn't without its own faults, I just happen to think the proposed solution fails to fix anything and amounts to childish crying because people didn't get the election results they desired.
3. I am swiftly arriving at the conclusion that this country needs to simply fracture because none of us agree on anything and we'd all be better off sequestering ourselves into territories with like-minded people working towards common goals rather than being a huge blob that wants to tear itself apart arguing over what it wants to do with itself while it slowly collapses.

1. That’s not how it works. Treat people like counts, we remind you that you have the common sense of a bag of shit lit on fire.

2. If it goes to straight majority instead of electoral college candidates are going to be forced to pander to the nation instead of 5-8 swing states.

3. The country doesn’t need to fracture. Idiots like you need to realize that equality is not a horrible concept, women don’t need to be at home if they don’t want, and we don’t need to set ourselves 200 years back for a supposed better time when everything was progressively worse for people’s rights.

[TummieGaruda]

Granted it probably would never happen but there is a scenario where a candidate can win the election by getting to 270 with only 25% of the popular vote.

[Zealot]

Under current electoral distribution, a candidate could carry 11 states (Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois) and lose the other 39 and have 270 electoral votes.

Doing some basic math, a rough estimate of 50% of those states populations combined comes out to 92.85 million. Assuming a similar turnout of eligible voters as 2016's election (58%) and also that all of that near-93 million represents said eligible voters, a President could conceivably be elected with a minimum of 53.85 million votes across 11 states despite losing 39 other states and (presumably) the other 74.85 million voters.

Actually, thinking about it, the number is even lower because they'd only need to win 50%+1 of the turnout of that 53.85.

[Fiye]

Yeah but that would mean Texas, California, New York, Ohio, and Florida would all have to fucking agree. If that ain't bizzaro world I don't know what is.

[Gredival]

What is the benefit of that alteration and why is it desirable?

[Fiye]

Groogs just wants to watch politicans stuff their face with fried butter.

[Byrthnoth]

While we are unskewing political representation, could we change primaries so they all happen on the same day?

"Yea eat that bacon, eat that corn, give me ur best shit eating grin, daddy likes it when he sees ur soul scream through ur eyes, Yea" - fans of Iowa being our most important primary state for some fucking reason