Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfhunter107]

It isn't.

[NullForceOmega]

If we change it so that the votes people make are meaningless and can be changed if someone complains loudly enough, we are doing the wrong thing.  The United States would be better served taking eight years of shitty leadership than destroying its basic functionality.

Short-term gain long-term loss.  That is what you are suggesting, the only way it ends is with the U.S. not existing, and being replaced by something or things else, and a hell of a lot of people are going to oppose that on general grounds.

[TheBiggerFish]

Ooooor we could replace the Electoral College by bloody popular vote already?  You know, because that's a thing we could do?

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Because it would mean an estimated thirty-seven electors voted faithlessly.  Sure there are occasional faithless, but that large of a number would set a precedent the electors are not beholden to their state.  That is not a world we want.

They never were beholden to their state unless the state said so.

Exactly.  It's a cultural taboo not to!  That stuff cannot be undone and if that is broken, then corruption and all that other bullshit has free reign, and you can kiss democracy goodbye 'cause we'll be heading straight to a plutocracy!

Then maybe if the system breaks down over 30 people it should be changed.

@Wolfhunter:The President is not supposed to be a state-level position.  Hillary is winning the national vote.

National Vote has outpaced Electorial Vote five times including this one in nearly two and a half centuries.  That's a pretty damn low failure rate when you consider it.  Sure, it may not be good, but with the way politics are going, the likeliest path is much worse.

Edit:

Ooooor we could replace the Electoral College by bloody popular vote already?  You know, because that's a thing we could do?

Given the only ways to get an amendment like that added, like hell they're going to give up any power they have.

[NullForceOmega]

I have no opposition to changing the system through the established methods.  If you can gather the necessary backing to amend the constitution for popular elections then by all means do so, but whining and complaining that the system as it exists and demanding it change without proper procedure will just make the whole thing pointless.

[TheBiggerFish]

Because it would mean an estimated thirty-seven electors voted faithlessly.  Sure there are occasional faithless, but that large of a number would set a precedent the electors are not beholden to their state.  That is not a world we want.

They never were beholden to their state unless the state said so.

Exactly.  It's a cultural taboo not to!  That stuff cannot be undone and if that is broken, then corruption and all that other bullshit has free reign, and you can kiss democracy goodbye 'cause we'll be heading straight to a plutocracy!

Then maybe if the system breaks down over 30 people it should be changed.

@Wolfhunter:The President is not supposed to be a state-level position.  Hillary is winning the national vote.

National Vote has outpaced Electorial Vote five times including this one in nearly two and a half centuries.  That's a pretty damn low failure rate when you consider it.  Sure, it may not be good, but with the way politics are going, the likeliest path is much worse.

Edit:

Ooooor we could replace the Electoral College by bloody popular vote already?  You know, because that's a thing we could do?

Given the only ways to get an amendment like that added, like hell they're going to give up any power they have.

What if there's a national clamor for it, because, you know, both sides will feel pretty betrayed by it and all?  Because they both were.

[NullForceOmega]

The get enough support to do it properly instead of whining that it isn't fair, if you can't get that support then accept that the bulk of people don't agree with you, or leave.

[TheBiggerFish]

The get enough support to do it properly instead of whining that it isn't fair, if you can't get that support then accept that the bulk of people don't agree with you, or leave.

Isn't that the point of this exercise?

Also:A majority of Americans want the Electoral College removed.

[NullForceOmega]

No, you are asking a group of people who have a task defined by their role to abandon that task in favor of your complaint, this is not , should not be, and cannot be allowed to be an acceptable course of action.

Also: prove it by getting them to do it.

[Blaze]

I'd say the Majority of American's don't know the Electoral College exists or how it functions. Much like how many Americans say America is a Democracy while it's actually a Republic.

[TheBiggerFish]

No, you are asking a group of people who have a task defined by their role to abandon that task in favor of your complaint, this is not , should not be, and cannot be allowed to be an acceptable course of action.

Their role is to meet and vote.  Never is it specified for whom.

I'd say the Majority of American's don't know the Electoral College exists or how it functions. Much like how many Americans say America is a Democracy while it's actually a Republic.

You'd be wrong.

[NullForceOmega]

Don't make broad statements with no backing, when Bush jr. was elected 'the majority' of people wanted the electoral college removed, didn't happen, why?  Not enough support.

And yes, they are expected to vote according to their state's will, that is the entire point.  There is a reason that not doing so is called being a 'faithless elector' and is considered inappropriate.

[TheBiggerFish]

Don't make broad statements with no backing, when Bush jr. was elected 'the majority' of people wanted the electoral college removed, didn't happen, why?  Not enough support.

And yes, they are expected to vote according to their state's will, that is the entire point.  There is a reason that not doing so is called being a 'faithless elector' and is considered inappropriate.

@NullForce:Just because the majority of the people support something doesn't mean that Congress gives a shit, unfortunately.

[NullForceOmega]

If a large enough majority demands action, then yes, Congress will have to give a shit, because if they don't they go out on their asses.  All the tools necessary to accomplish change are at the disposal of the U.S. public, if they are insufficiently motivated to make use of them then they clearly aren't going to get what they want.

[TheBiggerFish]

If a large enough majority demands action, then yes, Congress will have to give a shit, because if they don't they go out on their asses.  All the tools necessary to accomplish change are at the disposal of the U.S. public, if they are insufficiently motivated to make use of them then they clearly aren't going to get what they want.

Bahahahahahahaha gerrymandering ha.