End the Electoral College

brianlux

One small step that could make a huge impact.

https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-abolish-the-electoral-college?source=20161109sp1

Donald Trump has won the presidency after narrowly carrying a few states to put him above 270 electoral votes.

But according to the latest numbers, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. The game is rigged.

In other words, we have a similar situation as in 2000—where the candidate who more voters picked did not become president. It is unfair, undemocratic & we must eliminate the Electoral College.

Eliminating the Electoral College does not even require a constitutional amendment. An effort known as The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote. Once states totaling 270 electoral votes join the compact--which only requires passing state laws-- then the next presidential election will be determined the the popular vote, not the Electoral College.

As of November 9, 2016, ten states and the District of Columbia have signed the compact, totaling 165 electoral votes. So, we are already over 60% of the way there. If we can make this a national issue now, and if Democrats can do well at the state level in the 2018 midterm elections (which could happen under President Trump), then the winner of 2020 presidential election will be determined by popular vote.
Sign if you agree: Abolish the Electoral College and determine the winner of presidential elections by popular vote.

https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-abolish-the-electoral-college?source=20161109sp1

Degeneratefk

I actually do not agree with ending the electoral college. If you use nothing but the popular vote, only 5 states will determine EVERY ELECTION. As much as it sucks that trump won, he clearly won most of the country. Clinton's votes clearly came from the top 10 to 15 largest cities in the country. If you're ok with your vote not counting if you live anywhere with an electoral college votes less that 10, have at it.

brianlux

It's not an acreage competition. Look at Canada. How much of the vote gets swayed by everything north of 60 degree latitude there? But OK, it's your right to not sign it, D. so I would suggest not signing it.

Degeneratefk

Why should California, texas, new york, illinois, and Pennsylvania determine every election?

Go Beavers

Degeneratefk said:

I actually do not agree with ending the electoral college. If you use nothing but the popular vote, only 5 states will determine EVERY ELECTION. As much as it sucks that trump won, he clearly won most of the country. Clinton's votes clearly came from the top 10 to 15 largest cities in the country. If you're ok with your vote not counting if you live anywhere with an electoral college votes less that 10, have at it.

Cities and states wouldn't matter if it was just the popular vote.

Degeneratefk

Go Beavers said:

Degeneratefk said:

I actually do not agree with ending the electoral college. If you use nothing but the popular vote, only 5 states will determine EVERY ELECTION. As much as it sucks that trump won, he clearly won most of the country. Clinton's votes clearly came from the top 10 to 15 largest cities in the country. If you're ok with your vote not counting if you live anywhere with an electoral college votes less that 10, have at it.

Cities and states wouldn't matter if it was just the popular vote.

In theory. But just look at the map from yesterday. You're saying that those states with the most people won't influence most of the vote?

brianlux

Degeneratefk said:

Why should California, texas, new york, illinois, and Pennsylvania determine every election?

Sounds logical but you could also say why should the electoral votes from a few small states decide the fate of the country- or in this case possibly the state of the world?

Those here who support the idea of ending the electoral collage might want to sign the petition. Those who don't support the idea probably should not sign it.

Degeneratefk

brianlux said:

Degeneratefk said:

Why should California, texas, new york, illinois, and Pennsylvania determine every election?

Sounds logical but you could also say why should the electoral votes from a few small states decide the fate of the country- or in this case possibly the state of the world?

Those here who support the idea of ending the electoral collage might want to sign the petition. Those who don't support the idea probably should not sign it.

Should we not debate this or is this thread only about signing a petition?

brianlux

Degeneratefk said:

brianlux said:

Degeneratefk said:

Why should California, texas, new york, illinois, and Pennsylvania determine every election?

Sounds logical but you could also say why should the electoral votes from a few small states decide the fate of the country- or in this case possibly the state of the world?

Those here who support the idea of ending the electoral collage might want to sign the petition. Those who don't support the idea probably should not sign it.

Should we not debate this or is this thread only about signing a petition?

No, sorry, didn't mean to imply that. That's what AMT is all about- discussion.

Here's how I see it. First of all, the idea of a country, especially a big country seems absurd to me. If we thought and acted from a biocentric frame of mind (very logical to do so, I might add) we would see that we actually live in bioregions- the coastal areas, the plains, the great lakes areas, the radioactive wasteland of the Great Basin region (once upon a time a beautiful and delicate place), etc. If we thought that way, there would be no nation wide election and government. There would only be regional means of order or disorder.

But we don't think that way. We chose instead to live from an absurd perspective of anthropocentrism and nationalism. And thus be have a nation with mostly unnatural boundaries run by a national government. If we are going to do that and have one government for all, then we should answer to the majority vote of all.

Until we rewire our brains to be natural creatures thinking and acting from a biocentric perspective, I say abolish the electoral college.

lbpeltz

Donald Trump said this 4 years ago. This fella is really ahead of the game.

unsung

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/10/kevin-r-c-gutzman/beyond-the-electoral-college/

know1

The electoral college needs to be ended.

If it is, it won't be 5 states that will control every election. It will be the people who are voting. Not sure why people can't grasp that. Cities, states, etc. really don't mean that much any more in a world where communication, access to information and transportation are so good.

JC29856

know1 said:

The electoral college needs to be ended.

If it is, it won't be 5 states that will control every election. It will be the people who are voting. Not sure why people can't grasp that. Cities, states, etc. really don't mean that much any more in a world where communication, access to information and transportation are so good.

Never happen...it designed to take the power from the masses and place it in the hands of a chosen few.

droptheleash9

Ending the electoral college is a hot take. I am just as unhappy as anyone that Trump won the election but that doesn't mean that we should change the way we elect presidents and do things as a country. Should we rip up the constitution too? People are upset but that doesn't mean we should react irrationally. We need to band together, keep a positive outlook, work to make the changes we want to see, and support the issues that we care about in a peaceful, orderly, and (most importantly) respectful manner.

JC29856

Electoral college is not obligated to vote Trump

mace1229

What most don't think about or realize is Clinton would have lost if we did away with the electoral college and voted based on popular vote. The electoral vote actually favors the democratic nominee.
Last I checked her popular vote lead was around 0.1% - 0.2%. If you watched election results live, you would have seen Trump had the popular lead until the west coast states closed their polls. The reason being California, the largest state in our country with the largest number of electoral votes, runs so blue that they have among the lowest turnout for republicans. If their turnout was only 1% higher for republicans, which would still be far lower than the national average, Trump would take the popular vote. Same thing happens in NY. Yes, there are some states that go solid red, but they are not as large, and in most cases the democratic turnout is not as low as republicans in California.
So getting the largest state in every election without even trying definitely favors the democratic nominee. If every vote counted directly for the nominee and not the electoral vote, you'd see a much higher turnout from opposing parties in states that are not swing states, and this would favor the republican nominee based on those states.

Jason P

If Gary Johnson wasn't running, Trump probably would have won the popular vote.

Free

End the electoral college, then end the 2-party system. Make the election process easier for voters; easier to register, open up all state primaries, later deadlines to register, pass state laws outlawing use of superdelegates!'

JC29856

Free said:

End the electoral college, then end the 2-party system. Make the election process easier for voters; easier to register, open up all state primaries, later deadlines to register, pass state laws outlawing use of superdelegates!'

But you're talking about open democracy which is the last thing incumbents want.

Interesting thou, Americans don't want this democracy, they don't want any semblance of socialism, they don't want monarchy, they don't want a dictatorship or republic so what do they want?

rgambs

Free said:

End the electoral college, then end the 2-party system. Make the election process easier for voters; easier to register, open up all state primaries, later deadlines to register, pass state laws outlawing use of superdelegates!'

Those measurea together would ensure the death of the progressive movement.
Do you live in America at all?
The yokels of the nation have flexed their muscles, you had better pay attention.

pjhawks

I don't think we should end the electoral college because, as mentioned above, then only a few states would matter. BUT one change that could be offered to make it more fair is to have states split their votes more by region. In PA. Hillary won in the most populous areas in the cities and surrounding suburbs but lost big in the rural (redneck) areas. Maybe large states like PA should split their electoral college votes by region. I think this would be much fairer although I'm sure the arguments about where regions start and end would be brutal.