I'm not American (yet 😉) but I think the Electoral College is an excellent idea and should not be scrapped like some states are trying to do now

@ViciDraco You don't know how it works then.

@ViciDraco let me give you a very rough analogy. Imagine there's suddenly a famine in 40 of the 50 states.

One candidate is promising to increase "food" spending while the other is promising to lower the "food" budget.

Do you think its fair that people in 10 highly populated states should get to vote for the one who doesn't care about the famine while the people other 40 states, which make up most of the landmass in the country are left to starve?

@HoraceGreenley I know very well how it works. And to be fair, the population spread between rural and Urban areas was a lot more balanced when it was instituted.

In a perfect minority victory, it is possible for a person to become president by carrying something like 22 or 27 percent of the vote. It's extremely unlikely to ever pan out, but it's possible in our current system. Assuming faithful electors. Which is not a safe assumption.

Gross misunderstandings in this thread

@MasterLee Clearly.

@rickfreeman15 let's flip the script. Same scenario but it is the populated States starving. Is it okay for 40% of the population to vote to let 60% starve just because the 40% populate a larger stretch of land?

These scenarios are both Tyranny of the... Scenarios. Whereas tyranny is always bad, I find the position that Tyranny of the minority is fair if the minority owns more land is a putting the wrong priorities first.

@ViciDraco its definitely not okay, but the winner more accurately represents the will of the "Geographical entity" called America.
Comparing the first scenario with the second, I think its easier to campaign in 10 states and convince the people to ignore the crisis in the rest of the country than to have to go to 40 different states and convince them all (knowing each state has a different "culture/mindset")

@rickfreeman15 I think that is where we differ in philosophy. I view our elected Representatives as representing the People of the United States, not the Land of the United States.

I do understand the need to balance the concerns of larger states with smaller ones. And that is handled by having two bodies of Congress. The House of Representatives legislates by population. The Senate legislates per state territory.

But I still believe the electoral college is outdated. It's going to be a party line argument for a good while unless Democrats start winning electoral elections despite having smaller popular votes. At that point a lot of the people for and against will switch. Suddenly Dems will be all for preserving it and Republicans would turn against it. Blind party allegiance is rotting the core of our political discourse.

@rickfreeman15 Btw, winning 13 of the most populous states is enough to win the whole election.

@ViciDraco I don't see why elected officials can't represent both. . .especially knowing how diverse America is. For example, in my country there are over 300 ethnic groups. The northern part of the country is densely populated, but there are in fact more ethnic groups in the south with different cultures. That is why I think elections should represent both, because each ethnic group probably has different opinions based on their cultural values. Once a particular region continuously gets to decide because they're highly populated, you risk other regions honestly considering separation from the union.

@ViciDraco and yes, I agree that it seems like the Dems are only trying to circumvent the electoral college because Hilary lost

@QuixoticSoul exactly, you see the problem with that? A candidate can campaign in fewer states and just say f*ck you to the rest of the country since they guarantee him more votes. The electoral college makes sure each candidate has to go round the country and address the unique concerns of the people every where he/she does

@rickfreeman15 That's under the current system - 270 electoral votes.

@QuixoticSoul yes, and based on population density you only need 9 states of 50 (51 including DC!) To vote heavily for you To win MORE THAN 50% of the vote. And the winner of an election usually doesn't need that much.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

@rickfreeman15 Getting 100% in 9 states seems harder than getting the majority in 13 states 🤷‍♂️. Certainly, no state right now even comes close to being 100%. Even super safe never-flip states are closer to 60/30.

The electoral system empowers the smaller states a little - but the votes that really count are in swing states. That's why they get all the attention, campaign effort, etc. The system also encourages the leadership to ignore the interests of states that are "safe" for the other team. There is no real incentive for a Democrat president to pay concerns to interests of Texas - or for a Republican president to care about California's needs. It also disenfranchises the losing voters in said safe states - if you're a democrat in California, or a republican in Texas, you have no voice at all. I'm surprise those people even bother to vote, and many probably don't.

Once in a blue moon it allows for these kinds of procedural wins as we've seen with Bush and Trump, but that's a historical anomaly, and far from the purpose.

Alexander Hamilton outlines the reasons for Electoral College in Federalist 68 - give it a read.

Personally, I think we should weigh by GDP. It's the American way. People or square footage matter less than money.

@rickfreeman15 as far as candidates campaigning, a lot of them so focus heavily on just a few States and "flyover" the rest.

The winner take all nature of states is what allows the candidates to pick and choose which states to pay attention to. If the presidential election was by popular vote, the campaigning would have to be directed at a much wider audience than "the swing states".

The other thing we need to do is introduce ranked instant run off voting to eliminate spoiler effects and primary party lockdown of politics. But you won't see either Dems or Republicans pressing that issue. It'd actually give third parties a chance to gain traction.

@QuixoticSoul Good point, except you left out the fact that those 13 states with high numbers of electoral college votes (enough to make 270) differ greatly in ideology.
I mean, I for one still see great value in the electoral college, if anything the number of college votes/state can be adjusted somehow to more accurately reflect modern population and geography.
Although this is a right wing post I think its fair Trump was declared winner looking at how many counties he won, and that wouldn't be possible without the electoral college.


I honestly also see your arguments but I think if anything is to be changed it should be done democratically instead of states circumventing the law. Congressmen and women should be promoting healthy arguments for and against instead of turning it into a partisan thing because Hilary lost.

Edit: adding GDP into the mix could also be a good idea. An maybe there could be a "formula" or something that factors in all of this to calculate the electoral college votes each state gets in a year instead of a fixed number?

@rickfreeman15 Bingo! Succinct in clarity, and lucid in perception, your brief disclosure is as accurate as the subterfuge you uncovered.

How did you surmise the deception so quickly? Well done.

And by the way, when do you move to America!? We like you already.

The 9 most populous states you brought up also differ in ideology. Your extreme scenario is highly unlikely.

Counties aren’t anywhere near as important as the cities and suburbs in a presidential election. People over footage. Note how red CA is on your map - and just how badly Trump lost the vote in that state. That sort of thing makes that map meaningless.

Really, even the gdp is a poor way to decide these things, though it’s better than merely showing up. We should do this by tax revenue. If your state can’t pay its way - why should they get a say? Look at that, it even rhymes.

@QuixoticSoul Well here in my country in the elections last month a candidate got close to 2 million votes in a single state while his main opposition just got a few thousand.
Its possible that places with stronger left leaning laws such as Cali and NY could become even more populated with supporters of the ideology, and greatly reduce the diversity of political opinion in those places just like in my country.
In fact, lack of diversity of opinion is one of the major reasons for some secession calls over here.

@DudeistPriest I will be moving to America soon enough, getting my Bachelor's degree very soon😁😁 and I'll be there

@rickfreeman15 That’s not how things work in the states. We had a civil war and a secession at some point - and things still weren’t that solid.

Part of this is that America is relatively monocultural despite what people like to think - and folks chiefly move for economic reasons.

@QuixoticSoul But politics influences the economy too, don't you think? Left wingers would prefer states with higher taxes in exchange for more social programs while right wingers would prefer the opposite. And yes, I've read about the American civil war and it was pretty interesting. I also kind of feel like it applies here- lack of diversity in opinion made it possible for secessionist calls to get strong enough that it led to a war.