JKAsiege

Darth_Wayne wrote:

Magyk wrote:The electoral college is flawed but anyone that thinks popular vote is the solution is a complete idiot.

What? You're honestly approaching Caesar levels of stupidity here.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&t=2m39s

Whole video is great but that's probably the most relevant part of it.

HRC didn't try to mix up her game and appeal to different kinds of people. She won the vote of the exact kind of people you'd expect. She lost. Whoops.

I don't see how the electoral college forces candidates to appeal to different types of voters anymore than a popular vote would. If anything, it has the opposite effect; a Democratic candidate isn't going to bother campaigning in Alabama because it'll always be majority Republican. With the popular vote or some kind of system using proportional representation, it would be in each candidates' best interests to appeal to voters everywhere, instead of just those in swing states.

Here is how a typical electoral map of Illinois looks. Despite all of rural Illinois being solidly Republican, the state is a Democratic stronghold on the back of urban voters. So yeah, not buying the whole "appeal to different kinds of people" angle on this one...

Magyk wrote:HRC

I read Heroic. Whoops.


How about a system with an electoral college, but where it's not all or none? So that 10 delegates could be split 4/6 when one candidate gets only a small majority.

There has been talk for a number of years of making it not an all or nothing system. That would probably take care of most cases where popular vote wouldn't win the most delegates. The problem is that distribution of delegates isn't set by the constitution. Interestingly, the states decide how their delegates should be apportioned. So each individual state would have to individually change how they apportion delegates to move to a new system.

I have to say I believe in direct democracy even if a lot of people aren't educated voters. I believe everyone should have an equal say and the person with the most support should win. If most people pick a poor candidate then they'll get what they voted for and vice versa. I think having a direct responsibility for our government is a way we'll grow as a society. People will learn their votes matter and how they go about making their decision matters. It won't always be a smooth learning process though. Life isn't easy.

Another problem this discussion touches upon is the disparity between urban and rural voters. I think that urban voting more democrat and rural voting more republican is going to become more of an issue in the future. Rural states are probably going to feel like their voices aren't being heard as more and more of the population is urban and democrat. One thing the electoral college does now is balance that. Even it can't do it forever though. Eventually, the urban vote is going to dominate. What is of interest is why urban voters tend towards the democrats.