Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I have a few issues with that article. Firstly, it cites Abraham Lincoln's election as proof the electoral college is useful even if you have a low popular vote. It's leaving out the fact that Lincoln still WON the popular vote. There were four candidates in the election of 1860, Lincoln came out on top of the other three, so whether it was by electoral or simple majority votes Lincoln still would have been president.
Secondly, it's relying a lot on original intent of the Founders, which is an outdated means of determining good government. I'm more partial to President Ulysses S Grant's philosophy that it's dumb to assume one generation had all the answers and that we can't add, alter, or abolish things as we need to.
Heck, the fact that the Constitution itself has over two dozen amendments is itself evidence that the Founders didn't have a perfect document hot off the press. The fact that the first dozen of those amendments came from the Founders showed they agreed with me.
If the College was meant to keep out populist demagogues who had no leash from Congress like that article suggests then it worked once, Quincy Adams vs Jackson. And the Corrupt Bargain that pushed Adams over the finish line ensured his unpopularity which meant he got nothing done and was defeated by Jackson in the next election anyway.
Maybe it made more sense when the country was a loose collection of states that nobody was sure would even hold together. As of now though, that's not us. We are one country and the person the country's majority chooses should be president.
Yeah 2,819,534 people voted for Trump in New York, as did 1,601,933 in New Jersey. Similarly 870,695 in Tennessee voted for Clinton as did 3,877,868 in Texas.
That’s not accounting for all the people who stayed home because they know that their state will always go one way.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAnd as someone pointed out a few days ago TWO MINUTES BEFORE ME, despite black voters being a decisive factor in the Democratic primaries, virtually all their votes in the South are wiped out in the general thanks to the Electoral College.
Well, that and voter suppression.
Edited by Parable on Mar 28th 2019 at 8:00:45 AM
A lot of people are going to resist changes to the Senate; making it proportional like the House is going to raise a lot of concerns about bigger states gaining influence in BOTH chambers of Congress, and it's a valid concern.
That said, I'd be for just upping the number of Senate seats everyone gets anyway, as well as taking the cap off of the apportioned House seats. I don't think the number of seats allowed has risen in like seventy years, and in that time the population has exploded so you've got a weird situation where some Representatives have to stand in for a lot more people than others.
I am also pretty sure that you can't make the Senate more proportional. The Constitution has a clause saying that no state shall be stripped of their equal Senate vote, after all.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the bicameral system specifically made this way to compromise so that the bigger states won't feel belittled by being treated the same as the small ones and the small ones aren't constantly being silenced by the sheer size difference of their bigger fellow states?
Edited by akanesarumara on Mar 29th 2019 at 8:00:42 PM
That's exactly why it was done that way, which is why a lot of people would object to the Senate changing to a proportional system. And I don't think they'd be wrong in that case. It's been suggested here before and I keep pointing out that's what the House is for, maybe we should suggest ways to make the House more accurately proportional.
Although I don't think bicameral houses are necessary on the state level, but that was a bit of a monkey see monkey do situation and I don't think everyone is going to be filled with zeal the way that one guy from like, Nebraska I think, was to change the structure of a state government.
Edited by AceofSpades on Mar 29th 2019 at 1:10:20 PM
Yeah maybe changing the proportional rules as in for how many people do you get 1 Representative would help that situation. Changing the Senate too would be just making it unfair on the smaller states. As for state level, no idea but that is for the states themselves to decide no? If a state decides to change their system on the state level they can as long as the current state level agrees to it.
An article about Trump's policies the last few weeks
got me thinking: How much influence has this Mick Mulvaney (ex-Tea Party Congressman elected in 2010 and now laisses faire chief of staff to Trump) on Trump's policies? Some people think that things like Trump's recent healthcare lawsuit move are due to Mulvaney more than Trump himself.
And yes, each state can pick their preferred system of government.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Mar 29th 2019 at 8:34:30 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI've been a big believer in the Electoral College. The thing is part of my belief is the problems of the Electoral College are due to the fact that the United States has limited the voting rights of its territories:
Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., Guam, and other locations having votes in it is a different sort of political landscape. So is a United States where there has not been deliberate attempts to disenfranchise large groups of Americans.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The problem with the electoral collage is that all the arguments for it are based on myths
, the top 10 largest cities in the US make up barely around 8% of the population, and from there it drops so fast as to be a non issue.... with less then 1 million before you leave the top 10....
And even then of the top 11 4 of them are in Texas... a full 1/3d, I wonder why its alaways "wont california and new york control the votes" not "California and Texas" whenever that comes up despite Texas having more then 10 million more people in it then New York, and having more major cities then California or New York... and Texas just in general being bigger then New York in ever concivable way... its always new york in that argument.... it couldn't be that that argument is actual a dog whistle and it's actualy an objection to how those states vote could it?
It doesn't even help small states either, because candidates have no reason to care about them, only Florida, Ohio, and a couple other flip states... because they dont need to worry about any state that they have a good chance of winning in, nor any that they dont....
Its a failed system all around.
Edited by Imca on Mar 29th 2019 at 3:28:59 AM
Not to mention, people always talk about it not being fair for big states to have a bigger voice, which is bullshit.
With the current system, the 500,000 people in Wyoming have the same voice in the Senate as the 40 million people in California, which is disproportionate and bat shit crazy. Oh, and it favors white supremacy, because the least populous states are typically the most white.
Imagine a situation where people keep moving out of the state, and this becomes even more extreme. A state has no incentive to try and keep its population happy; it will get the same voice in the Senate even if it drives away most of its people.
And if Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. were suddenly to be states?
The Federal government grossly failed Puerto Rico and is failing now WDC because the federal govenrment is not interested in treating them as states. We also saw how New Orleans was failed by the federal government post Katrina. Making sure states have a voice beyond the larger and richer states is not a bad thing.
The system is not working right because the system is being gamed. The system needs to be fixed.
But over in Taiwan, a majority vote just removed the right of gay marriage. I am not exactly a big believer in "the majority = progressive." I grew up where the majority have long been the force for white supremacy and fundamentalist brutality.
The Republicans currently benefit from the Electoral College but that's because they've denied new states of people that aren't their voters as well as kept the voting blocks rigged via jerrymandering in their states. If that can be reversed then the number of states that would flip would be plenty.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 29th 2019 at 4:32:19 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The majority can screw up, yes. But that’s not the problem we’re facing here. The problem we’re facing is the conservative Senate, which is seriously skewed, blocking any and all legislation from the more representative house, and stacking the courts with conservative judges for decades. Tyranny of the minority.
The electoral college is bad because it is undemocratic and terrible, not because it tends to fuck over Democrats. I may think that voting for a Republican is heinous in 2019, but it is still screwed up that if you are a Republican in California or New York, you basically don’t exist for purposes of presidential elections.
Edited by wisewillow on Mar 29th 2019 at 7:36:20 AM
I think it's designed to make sure the needs of smaller rural communities aren't looked at.
Because people who don't have money and power need protection.
The system has been corrupted but the Electoral College means that things like the New Deal did include massive projects for deeply poor and disadvantaged regions in the United States.
Because they couldn't just be ignored.
But I suspect what your opinion on the Electoral College is depends on where you live.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 29th 2019 at 4:40:15 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Who doesn’t have money and power, hmm? Perhaps the millions of Black Democrat voters in the south that get ignored every presidential election cycle because the white republicans outnumber them? The electoral college is bad, whether it screws California republicans or Texas Democrats or Mississippi Democrats or Oregon republicans.
And don’t forget how much gerrymandered state legislatures screw over the powerless. Indiana votes like 55-45 republican to democrat when turnout is good. Our legislature is like 80% republican and they fuck us over as much as possible.
White supremacy kneecapped the New Deal so it wouldn’t help too many Black people. Every wonder why domestic workers and agricultural workers aren’t covered by most New Deal legislation, or weren’t until years later? Because most of those workers were Black. White southern democrat senators, who could ignore their disenfranchised Black citizens, held programs hostage unless local control and racial disparities were provided.
Edited by wisewillow on Mar 29th 2019 at 7:49:17 AM
Yeah, you're giving very good reasons to go after gerrymandering and making sure that black voters get their rights in smaller states.
And the New Deal's racism is a disgrace.
Poverty should be alleviated no matter what: white, black, or otherwise because its victims are persecuted horrifically and people try and kill the destitute in rural nations by denying them basic necessities. The destitute minorities in Kentucky are outnumbered by white by x4 in number but minorities are more likely to be destitute. Both are in dire need of federal help.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 29th 2019 at 4:50:24 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Even so, a Senator needs only 50.1% statewide. So he or she can ignore the 40% Black population and screw them over with impunity.
Name one good thing the electoral college does. Give me one reason that 49.9% of a state’s voters should have their votes not matter in every single presidential race.
Edited by wisewillow on Mar 29th 2019 at 7:51:51 AM
I'm fairly sure with removed criminality by the GOP that most states would become swing states.
And its winning an election for the votes in a fair unrigged contest.
For example, hopefully Florida's recent re-enfranchisement of ex-criminals (often for the pettiest of reasons) will allow it to finally stay representative of its populations true will.
Georgia's problem in its recent election was massive election fraud.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 29th 2019 at 4:53:27 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Yeah, California has tons of rural areas that vote Red, and NY has upstate NY.
Disgusted, but not surprised