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
And again, what does the EC have to do with that? Because you don't need the EC to believe that's a good strategy. I very much doubt that politicians are going to stop worrying about the rural areas, particularly the ones that represent those places. Or those particular industry interests.
You're so worried about rural voters being ignored but have not made the case sufficiently that the EC helps them or that going straight popular vote would actually disadvantage them.
Like, seriously, what is your case that the EC is the lynch pin of making sure those people are represented? Because you've totally failed to convince anyone.
Question: Isn't the only politician that needs to care about the Electoral College the President of the United States.
EDIT: EC reform is one of those topics I don't pay a lot of attention to. Mostly because I don't expect to ever actually happen (rendering any discussion moot, to my mind) and it's hard to argue for reform when the calls most often come right after the side wanting it just lost an election.
edited 23rd Jun '18 8:16:17 PM by sgamer82
And several people have already refuted those arguments. Like they've said, the EC doesn't help most rural voters anymore than it helps voters in the most populous states.
Because most of them are solid Red or Blue, they don't have to focus on them during presidential elections.
And also that. The Presidency isn't everything.
edited 23rd Jun '18 8:15:16 PM by LSBK
None of the arguments have actually refuted anything or given a single reason why the Electoral College isn't direly important to rural voters. While it only affects the Presidency, it's a major part of guaranteeing the President must take them into account.
This is wrong as we saw in 2 out of 4 elections. Indeed, it's so staggeringly incorrect, you might as well say water is fire.
edited 23rd Jun '18 8:17:31 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Rural states like Kentucky voted R-for-Reactionary in 8 of the last 10 presidential elections and 11 out of the last 15. They're threading their own nooses and they're throttling the rest of the country on the adjacent gallows. You'd probably get more left-of-center leadership at the federal level, who would put your desperately needed policy initiatives in place, without this idiotic and antidemocratic institution, but you want your stupid campaign pantomime before voting the troglodytes into office.
edited 23rd Jun '18 8:26:13 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
The only ruby red state that Obama got was Indiana, and that was his first time around. States that Trump won that Dems usually win (like Pennsylvania and Michigan have also still been competitive, even if the Dems managed to pull off the win the last few goes before him.
edited 23rd Jun '18 8:26:53 PM by LSBK
Rural voters have hanged themselves. They hang themselves in the United States, and they hang themselves here. At this point the only thing that will help the rural poor is if left-wingers are elected in large numbers, and the only way that will happen is if obstacles like the Electoral College die.
Without the EC we'd have had Gore instead of Bush, and Clinton instead of Trump. The world would be an objectively better place, and pretending the EC has done anything to help the people of rural Kentucky is just plain ludicrous.
Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than George Bush. Without the EC, he'd have been President, full stop. How is this even debatable?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I see, it doesn't matter that Bush did it via A CRIME because all that matters is your objection to the system.
"He had 500,000 more votes and even though Al Gore would have won if not for FRAUD, it's not debatable because of my point being better."
The Electoral College is not why Bush won and you know it. Fraud is why he won.
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:13:37 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
More like "The EC being absent would have prevented Bush becoming President the way he did, illegal or not"
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:15:13 PM by sgamer82
He lost the popular vote by half a million and the Supreme Court halted a recount that could have, possibly, shifted Florida to Gore. We know and none of us is saying that's okay. Had the Electoral College not existed, that advantage of 500,000 would have stood alone, and there would have not been any basis for Bush v. Gore. Gore would have simply won.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Yes, this is true but so would a proper investigation into the fraud, a chance for missing ballots to be retaken, and any number of other appropriate legal challenges.
Furthermore, if the electoral college is removed, then Republicans will continue to engage in fraud and I can easily see it strengthening their power base. Even now we have Voter ID and other methods to prevent minorities from voting and they'll just up it to compensate.
It's just seems to me its saying the system is broken (which it is) but not addressing the corruption and gerrymandering. Which it won't. All it will do is lead to abuse and disenfranchising of rural Americans so they can be ignored for urban communities.
But I don't thik either of us are budging on this. Thank you for taking time to explain your positions and why.
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:18:14 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Look up the definition of a non-sequitur argument some time. You are throwing everything you can at this fixation of yours, but it doesn't make any sense. Part of the drive behind voter suppression, especially in swing states, is that small changes in turnout within a state can shift the state's entire Electoral College vote. Going to national popular vote would mean you'd have to suppress millions more voters to change outcomes.
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:17:19 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Even now we have Voter ID and other methods to prevent minorities from voting and they'll just up it to compensate.
Once again, I have to ask, is your strongest argument now really "We'd have gotten screwed over, anyway, so why bother"?
Because that's what it sounds like
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:17:29 PM by sgamer82
@Charles, I think it's good to have view points that stray a bit from consensus from time to time, but you have a habit of not backing up your arguments, and drawing these things out much longer than you should.
Just let it go. Even if no one changes your mind, that's not a reason to keep going on like this, it just makes people less likely to care about what you have to say.
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:20:23 PM by LSBK
Weirdly, my argument is, "Are you guys really so used to Right Wing corruption you'd rather change the entire electoral system than try to stop the actual criminal abuses that would render the issue moot?"
Basically, everyone thinks it's better to get rid of the electoral college than:
- Stop criminal activity in the elections
- Campaign more in rural states
And that's just bizarre to me.
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:19:57 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Charles, reading between the lines, the only reason you're in favor of the EC is the ego trip that only undeserved, outsize political influence brings. How many reactionaries do people like you have to send to the White House before the idea takes root in your head that it isn't working?
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
That might be what you meant, but that's not what it sounded like.
Not to me. But, to be fair, I started following this late due to my above mentioned feelings about removing or reforming the Electoral College (it's a moot point since it realistically won't happen, anyway)
edited 23rd Jun '18 9:25:35 PM by sgamer82

Yes and no.
It was a hundred or more programs under one larger package. I'm not referring to every specific Kentucky-based program. However, Roosevelt's election was based on a campaign of "practical politics" where he was interested in acquiring votes from rural consumers versus big showy causes.
Roosevelt's strategy was the belief that he could appeal to the common voter directly by focusing on economic and society issues directly.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.