Everybody's Vote Should Count(ie eliminate the Electoral College)

[zigbee]

Hmmmmm
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...ar-AABL6B6

[cincydawg]

I didn't open the link, but I find that most folks who want it to "go away" have no clue what is needed to make that happen.

The movement by certain states to effectively eliminate it is more interesting to me.

OK, I did open the link and should have looked before posting my idiotic response above.

[P1tchblack]

Makes sense to me.  Every election, at every level of government, counts every vote equally and uses that to determine the winner.  I see no reason to do it differently with the president, though I suspect many Republicans will try to come up with reasons not to count every vote, because they believe it will result in more democrats being elected.

[cincydawg]

Imagine a national vote ended up being very close, how would you do a recount?

[ScarletHayes]

Everyone's vote does count in the state in which you vote.  Giving your electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote essentially wipes out the whole point of the electoral college.  States lose power and influence.  etc...  Just a "brilliant" idea.  


You want to really kick start a civil war and/or a secession movement?  Do this and see the outcome in 10--20 years.

[ScarletHayes]

Imagine a national vote ended up being very close, how would you do a recount?

You would just add up all the dead people that voted and then give the Dem candidate his rightful position in the White House.

[P1tchblack]

Everyone's vote does count in the state in which you vote.  Giving your electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote essentially wipes out the whole point of the electoral college.  States lose power and influence.  etc...  Just a "brilliant" idea.  


You want to really kick start a civil war and/or a secession movement?  Do this and see the outcome in 10--20 years.

Why would states' power and influence be relevant when it's people who are voting?  That's like saying, in a governor election, using popular vote takes away the power of the districts.

[zigbee]

Seeing that the states are over the elections in this nation it does make sense to have some type of federal harness to keep national elections SOMEWHAT above reproach if that is feasible to a degree.

[ScarletHayes]

Everyone's vote does count in the state in which you vote.  Giving your electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote essentially wipes out the whole point of the electoral college.  States lose power and influence.  etc...  Just a "brilliant" idea.  


You want to really kick start a civil war and/or a secession movement?  Do this and see the outcome in 10--20 years.

Why would states' power and influence be relevant when it's people who are voting?  That's like saying, in a governor election, using popular vote takes away the power of the districts.

The people of the states.  They would be utterly ignored in fly-over country.  Hence the states would lose power and influence in national elections.  They would be ignored and become essentially irrelevant in our national discourse.  This would inflame tensions between many of the states and the federal govt.    

IMO your analogy on the governor election doesn't work.  States aren't set up like a mini United States.   Major structural difference

[cincydawg]

The only states that get attention today are the purple states anyway. Clinton ignored WI/MI/PA obviously and it contributed to her defeat.

I don't think the move by the states to eliminate the EC (in effect) without an Amendment is going to work longer term. For one thing, at some point a state like Colorado will vote Democratic for President but the popular vote winner will be a Republican, and the people there may not like that.

[Alabuckeye]

The Electoral College was a brilliant compromise by those who set up our form of government. The desire to tear it down, whether truly feasible or not, indicates the short sightedness that our country now participates in.

[ScarletHayes]

The only states that get attention today are the purple states anyway.  Clinton ignored WI/MI/PA obviously and it contributed to her defeat.

I don't think the move by the states to eliminate the EC (in effect) without an Amendment is going to work longer term.  For one thing, at some point a state like Colorado will vote Democratic for President but the popular vote winner will be a Republican, and the people there may not like that.

Disagree on your first point.  As Trump campaigned heavily in those states and won.  


Your second point is spot on.

[P1tchblack]

Everyone's vote does count in the state in which you vote.  Giving your electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote essentially wipes out the whole point of the electoral college.  States lose power and influence.  etc...  Just a "brilliant" idea.  


You want to really kick start a civil war and/or a secession movement?  Do this and see the outcome in 10--20 years.

Why would states' power and influence be relevant when it's people who are voting?  That's like saying, in a governor election, using popular vote takes away the power of the districts.

The people of the states.  They would be utterly ignored in fly-over country.  Hence the states would lose power and influence in national elections.  They would be ignored and become essentially irrelevant in our national discourse.  This would inflame tensions between many of the states and the federal govt.    

IMO your analogy on the governor election doesn't work.  States aren't set up like a mini United States.   Major structural difference

I'm still not following.  A state, unless it's defined by a natural structure, like a river, is just an imaginary collection of lines on paper.   Looking at the United States, from a satellite, there are no "states".  Like a state, the US is just land inhabited by people.  Without the electoral college, every person has equal influence on an election because every vote counts as one vote.  Under the electoral college, republican votes in California, for example, haven't "counted" in 30+ years.

[cincydawg]

The EC exists, Bickering about it is pointless as the means to change it is simply not going to happen in 30 years and more.

The move by some states to bypass it is interesting, but I suspect will fail as well.

[Alabuckeye]

Everyone's vote does count in the state in which you vote.  Giving your electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote essentially wipes out the whole point of the electoral college.  States lose power and influence.  etc...  Just a "brilliant" idea.  


You want to really kick start a civil war and/or a secession movement?  Do this and see the outcome in 10--20 years.

Why would states' power and influence be relevant when it's people who are voting?  That's like saying, in a governor election, using popular vote takes away the power of the districts.

The people of the states.  They would be utterly ignored in fly-over country.  Hence the states would lose power and influence in national elections.  They would be ignored and become essentially irrelevant in our national discourse.  This would inflame tensions between many of the states and the federal govt.    

IMO your analogy on the governor election doesn't work.  States aren't set up like a mini United States.   Major structural difference

I'm still not following.  A state, unless it's defined by a natural structure, like a river, is just an imaginary collection of lines on paper.   Looking at the United States, from a satellite, there are no "states".  Like a state, the US is just land inhabited by people.  Without the electoral college, every person has equal influence on an election because every vote counts as one vote.  Under the electoral college, republican votes in California, for example, haven't "counted" in 30+ years.

We are not a Democracy....no matter how much the idea is pushed.