Ok boomer.

This post was edited by LA-Leviathan on Nov 19 2019 01:20pm

i wish more people grew food. even the latinos are getting squeezed out due to automated pickers.

The EC is poorly constructed and has only ever benefited Republicans in presidential elections, and it will likely only benefit Republicans going forward too. We could have election reform and implement things like instant runoff voting, proportional representation, etc., but people don't want to do that.

idk.

just as an example look at the 1916 elections.

49.2-46.1% popular vote, 277 electoral votes to 254.

but look at the Map:



the dems swept the rural areas and the republicans maintained the seaboard with only 1 outlier.

or 1936 when Roosevelt got 60% of the popular vote but 98.5% of the electoral votes.

or 1948 when Truman won on a 49% to 45% popular vote but got 303 to 189 electoral votes.

unless by benefited you mean "caused to win", but as it's only happened twice in 60 elections seems fairly moot. especially since Gore probably lost because of some b.s. the Bushes pulled behind closed doors. he should have won imo.

what do you base that prediction on? other countries without EC don't have that problem.
also, there are urban areas in literally every single state - so the expected shift away from subsidising dead industries like coal in a couple of states and other bad 'investments' in a few other swing states, to spreading those funds more evenly across ALL states, makes a lot of sense.

you personally might think you profit from it, and of course it's well within your right to support it therefore - but that doesn't make it a valid argument in favour of the EC.



only now, since trumpanzees think it somehow delegitimises his win, which is bs ofc - everyone knew the rules, and trump won.
back in 2013 for example, when the EC had no impact on the outcome of the election, people were clearly in favour of abandoning it:

i'm a country boy at heart. i like to use my guns responsibly, fear of country boys keeps gun laws within check.

i like to collect rain water. i like to keep chickens. i sell produce at a road side stand.

country boys havent gotten me much, but they have gotten me some stuff preserved. like i said they're handy. an oil filter wrench is handy, even though you rarely use it.



as to the electoral college my take is far more simple, states aren't going to vote to abolish it. let alone the legislature. so why is it constantly talked about (much like impeachment) as if we're going to see change? sure in 2013 people were against it, and many still are. but the politicians and states and political parties all love it. so it's going no where. in terms of ability to change it's a dead issue.

much like impeachment, where the senate will not vote to remove, its mostly all talk no action. the EC is going no where, trump wont be impeached. want to have a talk about the history of the EC or impeachment, fine, as long as that reality is in the context of the talk. when i hear people whining about the EC or trump as if its changing i just roll my eyes.



edit: in a more abstract sense to the EC question, living in Wisconsin (a battle ground state), presidential elections are a rare chance to be politically relevant. abolish the EC and i'm in just another flyover state. just another thing i thought of.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 19 2019 02:50pm

It accomplishes the very thing the EC set out to prevent, which is preferential approaches to presidential elections, where now we have the entire election dependent largely on swing states and prioritizing land mass over citizenry.

i mean we can play with words all we want.

"prioritizes land mass over citizenry" vs "prioritizes population density over representation" etc etc etc

we have "swing states" in the south east (florida), south west (Arizona), north east (pa, oh), north (mn, mi, wi)

all over the country there are places that require presidents to visit. to meet the people they might rule for 4-8 years. many have large rural areas, where if they skimp out they might lose the whole state.

the electoral college as it now stands requires a president to visit all corners of their nation. meeting with southerners, midwesterners, retired people in the SW, eastern people in the lead country, crazy people in florida, etc.

can u tell me that this would remain if they abolished the EC? of course not. it would be a press junket from capital city to city, DC to LA to NY. while the rest of us watch and figure out who to vote for with very little contact.

pass.

You exist in a false binary of EC v. No EC, as that isn't the only possible solution. Unfortunately, people who defend the EC can't see beyond their own benefit and realize that the EC is a flawed system and that a new, better system would be more representative and generate more political plurality for all of us.

no i dont. i live in reality. where ratification by congress and the states is required.

we can't come up with a plan for saving the earth. you want them to draft a fair and honest hybridized system that gives all 50 states representation and agency? lmao.

i'm not a defender of the EC, i realize it's a flawed system. but it's what we have, and what we'll have for the foreseeable future. so im recognizing some benefits because fender asked me directly "what has the EC done for you?".

flawed, yes. broken, no. the EC can persist, even in this unprecedented level of political division, indefinitely. i'll change my mind when someone gets 10% more popular vote and loses the EC.

but 2% difference with a total of 30 states to 20 states. sounds to me like someone forgot to campaign in the battle grounds, not a failure of the EC.